Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Well, energy transmission is something that is a part of the broader equation. Pipeline reliability is something that we all need to be concerned about. More fundamentally, we need to deal with the sources of energy, what is driving them, how we reduce carbon emissions, not sort of how we shift the pieces around. The priority, I think, ought to be sustainable energy, more economic investment, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, not cooking the planet. I recently had my first two grandchildren in a course of a few months. It was interesting to me--some of these dry debates that we have that talk about by 2100, sea levels may rise 3 or 4--that always seemed kind of remote to me until I realized that these two young men, if they live as long as their great-grandmother, will be alive in the year 2100, and what we do as a Congress helps shape the world that they inherit. That's our responsibility. That's why I deeply appreciate both of you being a part of this discussion this evening and why I hope that our Republican friends will join us in an actual debate of these policies, practices, what the choices are. Hopefully, it may actually lead to action in the floor of the House for a more sustainable future.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I'm prepared to yield back, unless my friend from Memphis wants any concluding comment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this bill represents the lowest common denominator. I am extremely disappointed that it does not prevent the unnecessary cuts of the sequester and that it fails to fund many programs that are vital to Oregon and the Nation. At this point, however, this bill is the best that we can do. I am voting for it in order to avoid a government shutdown. With this most recent manufactured crisis behind us, I hope that Congress can come together and get serious about making the investments that will implement healthcare reform, rebuild and renew America's crumbling infrastructure, help our neediest families, and protect public health and the environment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I want to thank my colleague from California for being here this evening, for sharing the time, allowing me to speak with him. And I must say how excited I was that a friend who actually had a rewarding career was willing to jump into the political fray, which has been difficult at times, particularly as we've had the contentious issues surrounding health care, and that you would be willing to bring your expertise, time, and energy when you had other choices with your life and career. We really appreciate it. Because the experience you have had in the medical profession, the years of study, the actual experience with real-life people adds a dimension that is helpful here in ways that I don't know that you fully appreciate, but I certainly do. I also appreciate focusing on the critical nature of Medicare and where we're going in the world of health care reform. I just spent last week dealing with my Republican friends' approach to the budget. It can only be described as an exercise in fantasy. They start with the notion that somehow they're going to eliminate ObamaCare entirely; and they seek to transfer the burden of Medicare and Medicaid from the government onto the shoulders of some of America's most vulnerable poor and disabled, and our senior citizens. I really appreciate your focusing on the importance of Medicare in providing dignity and stability to millions of Americans. Now, I think there have been, between the House and the Senate, about 50 efforts or more to repeal the health care reform. I must say I hope that finally people get it out of their system. I was surprised that we went in this direction, to turn Medicare into a voucher, a block grant for Medicaid, and put this burden on our senior citizens and some of our poor and disabled Americans, because this was the centerpiece of their campaign for the last 6 months. This was part of what our friend Paul Ryan and Governor Romney preached from coast to coast, advertised, campaigned; and all of a sudden it was rejected by the American public overwhelmingly. The President was comfortably reelected. In fact, there were more Democratic Senators added who support this effort. In the House of Representatives, not only did we gain seats, but more than a million voters--more voted for Democrats than Republicans. So you would think that this canard would be put to rest; but it is important for people to know that it is still a viable option as far as our Republican friends are concerned. It's unfortunate because we are making some progress in reforming the health care system--not by turning our back on Medicare, not by transferring the risk and responsibility to seniors and the most vulnerable, but by making it more efficient, by taking some of the experiments that we've done in my home State of Oregon--and as you well know there are some health care systems in California that have already found ways to reward value over volume, to be able to extend care, and do so more efficiently, and squeeze the approximately one-third to 40 percent or more of our health care spending that is wasted. We can do a better job. We start, I think, by protecting Medicare. We start by recognizing that a voucher--or premium support, or whatever they call it--that caps the investment does nothing to reform health care; but, instead, it puts seniors and our most vulnerable citizens out navigating the health care maze with fewer resources and more responsibility and actually making it harder. Because that's why we have Medicare in the first place. The private market did a terrible job meeting the needs of America's oldest and least healthy population. I am hopeful that we're going to be able to continue this effort that you're spearheading here tonight, for people to understand the opportunities to continue reform, to note that we are actually seeing a gradual stabilization of health care spending right now, and that there are things in the hopper that we can do going forward without taking advantage of people who deserve the security of a solid, reformed health care system, not one that the Federal Government vouchers and turns their back. I would yield back to the gentleman if there are comments. I look forward to hearing what you have to say, and perhaps there may be a little more interaction if it's useful.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Dr. Bera. I appreciate your focus on this and pointing out that this is something that shouldn't be a partisan issue, doesn't have to be a partisan issue, and it is in fact a success story that has made a huge difference in the lives of seniors from coast to coast. It's helped, in many cases, stabilize what's happened in terms of local health care economics. The pattern that we have seen in escalating health care costs for the last 40 years, yes, there are concerns about health care as it relates to Medicare; but if you compare the rate of increase of private health insurance versus the rate of increase in Medicare, Medicare spending has not gone up as rapidly as what's happened with the private insurance sector. No senior citizen under Medicare needs to go bankrupt because of medical costs. The security that you mentioned, I find it embarrassing and shameful that the United States is the only major country in the world where there are still people going bankrupt for health care costs. Half of all bankruptcies are a result of health care emergencies. It doesn't have to be this way, and it is not that way for American seniors. But if we're going to change our health care commitment to our senior citizens, taking away the guarantee of Medicare, flinging people into an uncertain private market that failed them in the past, which is why we had Medicare in the first place, that guarantee is not certain to be there. No one thinks that we shouldn't have a health care system with a Medicare that is flexible going forward. We're open to reforms, absolutely. We want to reward value instead of volume. We want to be able to deal with the pattern of unnecessary medical readmissions for Medicare patients after they've been in the hospital. It's too high still. But we are working on mechanisms in Medicare and with the hospitals to be able to reward keeping them out of the hospital with preventable conditions that require readmission. We're in the process of looking at Medicare Advantage, which is growing dramatically. I come from the district that has probably the highest penetration of Medicare Advantage in the entire country, and it serves in many cases my constituencies pretty well, but there are wide variations across the country in Medicare Advantage. Not all Medicare Advantage programs are created equal. Again, part of what we've done with the Affordable Care Act is not to turn our backs on potential opportunities to improve it, but to dive in and find ways to reward the most efficient and effective Medicare Advantage programs and, frankly, reduce the support for programs that aren't measuring up. That's what we should be doing. We are moving in this direction. We don't have to take away the commitment that we have made to America's seniors to improve Medicare, Medicare Advantage, to be able to get even more value out of the system--not just tax dollar savings--but better quality care for our senior citizens, which should be our objective. I know, Doctor, that is something you've practiced both as an elected official and as a professional; and I deeply appreciate it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this week, we begin the Republican charade of pretending to balance the budget in 10 years, without a hint of how it really is possible. They intend to repeal ObamaCare, which was the central issue in the last campaign, where you will remember President Obama was reelected, the Senate went even more Democratic, and House Democrats gained seats and won over 1 million more votes than the Republicans. Normal people would think that the ObamaCare issue might be settled. Does anybody realistically think it's going away anytime soon? The Republican fantasy budget reduces taxes dramatically without a hint of how it would be possible, without exploding the deficit or dramatically raising taxes on the middle class. This is consistent with what the Romney-Ryan ticket said on the campaign trail last fall. The same issue where they dodged, dissembled, or ignored the perfectly reasonable question: How is it possible? Six months later, it's back in the budget, but there still is no answer. During the last 40 years, there have been only four budgets without deficits: the last three Clinton budgets and the one that George Bush inherited from Bill Clinton. In each case, taxes as a percentage of the total economy were over 20 percent. In this Republican fantasyland, budgets are balanced with revenues at 19 percent of the economy, yet meeting the needs of 78 million more seniors and an infrastructure deficit that is growing as America is falling apart. Clearly, this is not remotely possible if we're going to enjoy anything like our current quality of life. There is a real-world intersection of budget-saving opportunities with potential areas of agreement. Health care reform is one, but not just by shifting the burden to seniors and the disabled, as the Republicans propose in their fantasy budget. My home State of Oregon is in the middle of an exciting demonstration of how to squeeze out the waste we all know is there and realign incentives. Instead of the empty ritual of pretending to repeal ObamaCare, let's work together to accelerate reform for all Americans. If the Oregon experiment works--and frankly, many of these efficiencies, by the way, are already achieved in other parts of the country and with some private health systems--we could save more than $1.2 trillion that the flawed sequester is supposed to achieve in the next 10 years. Another area of irresponsibility in the Republican budget is defense. Instead of increasing Pentagon spending, we should reform it. The most obvious target is the nuclear arsenal larger than anything we need for nuclear deterrence. Ten percent of our nuclear weapons would decimate Russia. A handful of missiles would wipe North Korea off the map, yet they propose to spend over two-thirds of $1 trillion over the next 10 years on this bloated arsenal. Before we increase the Pentagon budget, maybe we should figure out why the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is now 7 years behind schedule, 70 percent over budget, and the Pentagon still doesn't know how it's going to meet the more than $1 trillion in operating and maintenance costs. Amazingly, the Republicans want to increase spending for the Pentagon, the only major budget so flawed it can't even be audited. There are bipartisan opportunities to reduce and reform the military, but you're not hearing about it in the Republican budget this week. Instead of a Republican rerun of a bad reality TV show, let's consider working together on areas to change how the government does business and give more value to the taxpayer while we get spending under control.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I am voting against H.R. 803, ``The SKILLS Act,'' because it significantly limits the important role that community colleges, labor unions, and local community leaders play in assessing workforce needs and delivering important workforce development resources. It also ignores the unique needs of many individuals who are disadvantaged in the workforce and represents a step backward from current policy. Effectively investing in workforce development programs that train workers to compete in an ever changing and increasingly technology- based job market is essential to improving quality of life, rebuilding our fragile economy, and bolstering our competiveness over the long- term. Decisions about the best way to channel resources to ensure success should represent a wide variety of perspectives. While industry and local elected officials have an essential role to play in these conversations, this legislation favors the private sector while unnecessarily limiting the participation of institutions that offer workforce training programs, of groups representing workers rights, and of organizations advocating for minority and underrepresented groups. The legislation also consolidates workforce and training programs into state-level block grants designed to serve everyone. There are many groups that face unique challenges to obtaining employment, such as veterans, minorities, workers with disabilities, and young people. It is important that we ensure these groups have access to Workforce Investment Act programs, and consolidating programs into a block grant runs the risk of overlooking these unique needs. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree that the Workforce Investment Act needs reform. This is why I support H.R. 798, which would reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act while strengthening partnerships between employers, community colleges, labor unions, and other stakeholder groups. It also streamlines and coordinates workforce programs without eliminating the important focus on disadvantaged groups. Unemployment remains stubbornly high across the country. As we slowly continue to recover from the economic recession, it is essential that we make smart investments in workforce development. In Portland, Oregon, our region saw 155,900 people use workforce services in 2012, with 68,000 completing workforce programs, and 35,400 being placed for work. Under the guise of streamlining programs, H.R. 803 runs the risk of reducing these numbers, limiting access and limiting the effectiveness of our investments in Oregon and around the country at the exact time we should be increasing access to and enrollment in workforce training programs.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, advances in health care have led to increasingly complex health care decisions and more treatment options than we have ever before had the benefit--or the burden--of choosing between. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that individuals should be fully involved in decisions related to their own health care and should be able to make informed decisions about that care reflecting their values and their needs. We also agree that when people have expressed their wishes, particularly in a formal and legally binding manner, those wishes should be known and respected. While there is widespread agreement regarding these principles, too often this is not the reality. Most adults have not completed an advance directive; if documents are completed, they are not regularly revisited and can be difficult to locate. Because these issues are difficult to discuss, surrogates often feel ill-prepared to interpret their loved ones' written wishes. It is for these reasons that I am introducing the bipartisan Personalize Your Care Act, legislation that would support individuals and their doctors having voluntary conversations about patients' wishes and health care decisions. Failing to have conversations about these decisions ahead of time can leave families and health care proxies faced with the burden of determining their loved ones' wishes in the midst of crisis, sometimes with little or no information about how best to direct care. This adds not only stress and anxiety to an already difficult situation, but studies show that lack of advance care planning actually prolongs the grieving process after losing a loved one. One of the greatest misconceptions about advance care planning is that it is a one-time event. Attempting to plan for all possibilities in a single document or within a single conversation is overwhelming and, quite likely, impossible. Where possible, this should be an ongoing conversation. Careful, early advance care planning is important because a person's ability to make decisions may diminish over time and he or she may suddenly lose the capability to participate in his or her health care decisions. Successful advance care planning is less about legal documentation and more about facilitating ongoing communication about future care wishes among individuals, their health care providers, and surrogates. The Personalize Your Care Act recognizes that documents like advance directives and physician orders for life-sustaining treatment are not ``ends'' but ``means''--the tools individuals can use to document their care preferences based on informed decisions incorporating their own values and current circumstances. It is important that individuals work with their care providers to update these documents as treatment options and personal preferences change. This process not only provides higher quality care, but personalized care. The Personalize Your Care Act aims to support advance care planning by providing Medicare and Medicaid coverage for voluntary consultations about advance care planning every 5 years or in the event of a change in health status. This periodic revisiting of advance care documents and goals of care recognizes that an individual's preferences can change over time. It also recognizes that the advance care plan should be updated if an individual develops a serious or chronic illness, if additional curative and palliative treatment options become available, and to consistently reflect the individual's current circumstances and preferences. Honoring the expressed wishes of individuals must also be a priority. For this to occur, advance care planning documents must be accessible wherever care is provided. The legislation ensures that an individual's electronic health record is able to display his or her current advance directive and/or physician orders for life sustaining treatment (POLST), so that his or her wishes are easily accessible and respected. Furthermore, under the legislation, advance directives would be portable, ensuring that advance directives completed in one state are honored in another state, in the event care is needed to be provided there. The legislation also provides grants to states to establish or expand physician orders for life sustaining treatment programs. For instance, the National POLST Paradigm Program Task Force provides consultation, guidance and mentorship to developing states for program and form development, recognizing the uniqueness of each state. These programs have a track record of promoting patient autonomy through documenting and coordinating a person's treatment preferences, clarifying treatment intentions and minimizing confusion, reducing repetitive activities in complying with the Patient Self Determination Act, and facilitating appropriate treatment by emergency personnel. These investments in advance care planning will reinforce patient- centered care--engaging individuals in planning and decision-making about their future care and ensuring that those preferences are documented, accessible, and can be honored in any state and in any care setting. The Personalize Your Care Act is supported by members of Congress on both sides of the political aisle and by patient advocates, physicians, nurses, and the faith community who see every day how advance care planning improves individuals' and families' peace of mind and the quality of their care.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am voting against H.R. 890 because it, just like nearly identical legislation brought before the Ways and Means Committee last year, is based on partisan charges that have been widely discredited by independent fact checker. It would also block new and innovative ways to move more people from welfare to work. At a time when Congress confronts so many pressing issues, not the least of which is preventing the misguided cuts in the sequester from hurting our economy, H.R. 890 is a step in the wrong direction. H.R. 890 prevents the administration from pursuing flexible, innovative ways to return people to work. As Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius informed our committee, ``the Department is providing a very limited waiver opportunity for states that develop a plan to measurably increase the number of beneficiaries who find and hold down a job. Specifically, Governors must commit that their proposals will move at least 20% more people from welfare to work compared to the state's past performance.'' The Congressional Research Service (CRS), in reviewing the administration's authority to permit demonstration projects, found that the current waiver initiative is ``consistent'' with prior practice. The CRS review found that dozens of waivers for demonstration projects have been approved in the past when their subject matter has been referenced in Section 402 of the Social Security Act (just as the administration currently proposes). CRS also found nothing in the law bars Secretary Sebelius from providing waivers related to employment activities in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. H.R. 890 seems more focused on politics than on policy. On that basis, and because it would impede progress in helping more welfare recipients move into work, I oppose this legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation. In Congress, we continue to talk past ourselves on how to get to fundamental financial sustainability. If flexibility is necessary for some agencies, then why not provide all of them with the necessary flexibility to deal with the draconian impacts of the sequester? I opposed the sequester from the beginning and still believe it's a terrible idea. Congress should have dealt with it comprehensively at the end of last year; we should have had a bigger solution then. Now that we are stuck with it, we have to deal with the consequences. Providing flexibility to some of the agencies but not others makes no sense--it merely allows the Defense Department to mitigate some of the worst effects on its budget, while continuing to hamstring vital domestic priorities. For instance, the $1.6 billion cut in the NIH budget will cut research into illnesses affecting millions of Americans, senior meal programs like Meals on Wheels will be cut by up to 4 million meals for needy seniors, and in my State, head start and early head start programs are being cancelled. In my home State of Oregon, we will lose approximately $10.2 million in funding for primary and secondary education, putting about 140 teacher and aide jobs at risk. Our Head Start and Early Head Start services will be eliminated for approximately 600 children, reducing access to critical early education. Oregon could lose up to $81,000 in funds that provide services to victims of domestic violence, resulting in up to 300 fewer victims being served. Overall, this reckless policy will cost our country roughly 750,000 jobs, according to the CBO. They also estimate that allowing sequester to take place will lower economic growth from 2.0 percent to 1.4 percent, cutting anticipated economic recovery by a third. Instead of throwing our hands up, we should make smart, targeted budget decisions that, taken over 10 years, are an alternative to the arbitrary sequester cuts and can put the country on a more sustainable fiscal path.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as we wait for the Congress and administration to deal with how to do business differently for defense, for health care, for the Tax Code, we can take a break today as we welcome over 750 men and women from every State in the Union who are here for the 14th Annual Bike Summit. They represent, as you might expect, people from cycling clubs and the mountain bike industry. There are also dedicated recreational cyclists, those who are involved with bike tourism, which has become very big business, by the way. And speaking of business, there are representatives of bicycle repair, bicycle manufacturers, and others who design, manufacture, and sell equipment and apparel. Bicycles mean business, in my hometown alone over $150 million of economic activity in a year, employing over 1,000 people. As the Bike Summit attendees visit Capitol Hill later this week, we will have an opportunity to hear from people of all ages, all walks of life, communities large and small. They are firm in the belief that the Federal Government should be a stronger partner in capitalizing on the most efficient form of urban transportation ever designed. Bicycles burn calories, not fossil fuel, and take up a 10th of the space of a car. More importantly, for those who drive, every bicycle in the protected bike lane next to you is not a car in front of you or competing for a scarce parking space. The goal here is to give Americans more choices about how they move, making it safe for children to walk or bike to school. It helps those children, it relieves stress on the family, and can cut 30 percent of the rush-hour congestion. Bicycling helps kids stay active at a time where we are obsessing about a lack of physical activity for our children, a level that is already too low and declining. Bicycling is a natural remedy. Cities of all size are participating in the bicycle revolution. It would not be nearly as advanced as it is, but for $8.9 billion of Federal investment since the original ISTEA reauthorization. It has accelerated programs, leveraged other investments and has increased transportation capacity for everybody, and done so more cost effectively than any other expenditure. By the way, $1 million invested in bicycle facilities creates more family-wage jobs than simply constructing more miles of highway. It is also easier and faster to accomplish. At a time when America has an infrastructure deficit that is in the trillions of dollars, when that infrastructure is falling apart and unreliable, our coalition for policies and resources to rebuild and renew America will be stronger if it includes the millions of Americans who travel by bike. I strongly urge my colleagues and their staff to take the time to visit with these advocates this week. Hear their stories about transforming communities of all sizes: rural, urban, suburban. Most important, learn how they are giving families safe transportation choices that they never had before. Visit with these cycling leaders. More important, at home, when you are back, get on a bike, walk a trail, join the volunteers, witness an event with your family and talk to the bike businesses and community partners. All of these stakeholders can help us visualize what the Federal partnership could mean in making communities across America more livable and our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. What's so maddening about the sequester drama, just like the earlier fiscal cliff drama and the looming government shutdown drama, is that it is hopelessly beside the point. The path to fiscal sustainability is not merely cutting budgets, raising tax rates, or closing a few loopholes. It is about fundamentally doing business differently. Health care costs demand that we accelerate health care reform, which we're already working on in Oregon and in a number of other communities and health care systems across the country. These reforms, if put into effect nationally, would save more in health care costs over the next 10 years than the entire $1.2 trillion sequester. Everybody is getting excited about across-the-board cuts in the Department of Defense, but no one is talking about how we fundamentally change our philosophy of military compensation, benefits, and the size of the force to come to grips with the cost of an all-volunteer Army. Of course, at a minimum, we should also dramatically reduce and shift resources away from the vast nuclear weapons stockpile and the three redundant delivery systems which we haven't used in 68 years and probably never will. We have 10 times more nuclear firepower than we need for deterrence. It is past time to scale down that archaic symbol of the Cold War and save hundreds of billions of dollars at no risk to American security. It is time for Congress and the administration to work meaningfully for agriculture reform to give more support for America's farmers and ranchers at a fraction of the cost. We should reform the outrageous, inefficient, and unproductive crop insurance program. We should restore investments in nutrition, conservation, research, and marketing that will make a difference for most farmers and ranchers, improve long-term productivity, and support value-added agriculture. This saves money in the long run and doesn't distort our trade position or make Americans unhealthy. By all means, we must reform our Tax Code, but reform is not likely to raise anything near what a growing and aging America is going to need. Yes, close more of the egregious loopholes, but we need another broad-based source of revenue. A carbon tax would fit the bill, help reduce the deficit, and help us protect the planet from increasingly catastrophic weather events and the budget-busting disaster relief that inevitably follows. We should, for the first time in 20 years, increase the gas tax, as recommended by the Simpson-Bowles report, a user fee that will help enable us to provide more support for transportation, put more people to work rebuilding and renewing America. We might take a lesson from the history and our failed 14-year effort to prohibit alcohol, where the government spent a fortune in a fruitless effort to enforce prohibition, lost a fortune in revenue, and made a fortune for the Mafia, the underworld cartels of the 1920s, that haunts us to this day. We ought to treat marijuana like we treat alcohol: the Federal Government regulates and taxes while the States decide what they want to do to legalize for medical or recreational use. Given what's already happened in 23 States and the District of Columbia, let's save money on enforcement, raise revenue from taxation, and invest in drug treatment and efforts to keep drugs out of the hands of children. Let's take a break from the endless debates that are basically beside the point. Let's commit to doing business differently with health care, the military, enact broad-based taxes to both raise money and fix a broken Tax Code, stop cheating the majority of farmers and ranchers and the environment. This is not rocket science. We could start now if people address the big issues in a thoughtful way. Even when some of the measures may be controversial or hard, it's a whole lot better than doing stupid things that alienate everybody.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I submit this letter, which is an example of an opportunity for a bipartisan climate action. The Cost of Inaction . . . The effects of climate change in the world's most vulnerable regions present a serious threat to American national security interests. As a matter of risk management, the United States must work with international partners, public and private, to address this impending crisis. Potential consequences are undeniable, and the cost of inaction, paid for in lives and valuable U.S. resources, will be staggering. Washington must lead on this issue now. Countries least able to adapt to or mitigate the impacts of climate change will suffer the most, but the resulting crises will quickly become a burden on U.S. priorities as well. Both the Department of Defense and the State Department have identified climate change as a serious risk to American security and an agent of instability. Without precautionary measures, climate change impacts abroad could spur mass migrations, influence civil conflict and ultimately lead to a more unpredictable world. In fact, we may already be seeing signs of this as vulnerable communities in some of the most fragile and conflict-ridden states are increasingly displaced by floods, droughts and other natural disasters. Protecting U.S. interests under these conditions would progressively exhaust American military, diplomatic and development resources as we struggle to meet growing demands for emergency international engagement. It is in our national interest to confront the risk that climate change in vulnerable regions presents to American security. We must offer adaptive solutions to communities currently facing climate-driven displacement, support disaster risk reduction measures and help mitigate potential future impacts through sustainable food, water and energy systems. Advancing stability in the fare of climate change threats will promote resilient communities, reliable governance and dependable access to critical resources. We, the undersigned Republicans, Democrats and Independents, implore U.S. policymakers to support American security and global stability by addressing the risks of climate change in vulnerable nations. Their plight is our fight; their problems are our problems. Even as we face budgetary austerity and a fragile economic recovery, public and private sectors must work together to meet the funding demands of this strategic investment in internationally- backed solutions. Effective adaptation and mitigation efforts in these counties will protect our long-standing security interests abroad. Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State 1997-2001; Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State 2001-05; Samuel Berger, National Security Advisor 1997-2001; Sherwood Boehlert, US Congressman (R-NY) 1983-2007; Carol Browner, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency 1993-2001; Michael Castle, US Congressman (R-DE) 1993- 2011, Governor (R-DE) 1985-92; GEN Wesley Clark, USA (Ret), Fmr. Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO; William Cohen, Secretary of Defense 1997-2001, US Senator (R-ME) 1979-97; Lt Gen Lawrence P. Farrell, Jr., USAF (Ret.), Fmr. Deputy Chief Of Staff for Plans and Programs, HQ USAF; BG Gerald E. Galloway, Jr., P.E., Ph.D., USA (Ret.), Fmr. Dean of the Academic Board, US Military Academy; Wayne Gilchrest, US Congressman (R-MD) 1991-2009; James Greenwood, US Congressman (R-PA) 1993-2005; VADM Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.), Fmr. Inspector General of the Department of the Navy; Lee Hamilton, US Congressman (D-IN) 1965-99, Co- Chair, PSA Advisory Board; Gary Hart, US Senator (D-CO) 1975-87; Rita E. Hauser, Chair, International Peace Institute; Carla Hills, US Trade Representative 1989- 93; Thomas Kean, Governor (R-N) 1982-90, 9/11 Commission Chair; GEN Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret), Fmr. Commanding General, US Army Materiel Command; Richard Leone, President, The Century Foundation 1989-2011; Joseph I. Lieberman, US Senator (I-CT) 1989-2013; Richard G. Lugar, US Senator (R-IN) 1977-2013; VADM Dennis V. McGinn, USN, (Ret.), Fmr. Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements and Programs; Donald McHenry, US Ambassador to the UN 1979-81; Constance Morella, US Congresswoman (R-MD) 1987-2003, US Ambassador to OECD 2003-07; Sam Nunn, US Senator (D- GA) 1972-96; John Porter, US Congressman (R-IL) 1980- 2001; Tom Ridge, Secretary of Homeland Security 2003- 05, Governor (R-PA) 1995-2001; ADM Gary Roughead, USN (Ret.), Fmr. Chief of Naval Operations; Warren Rudman, US Senator (R-NH) 1980-92, Fmr. Co-Chair, PSA Advisory Board; Christopher Shays, US Congressman (R-CT) 1987- 2009; George Shultz, Secretary of State 1982-89; Olympia J. Snowe, US Senator (R-ME) 1995-2013; GEN Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (Ret.), Fmr. Chief of Staff, US Army, Chairman, CNA Military Advisory Board; Timothy E. Wirth, US Senator (D-CO) 1987-93; Frank Wisner, Undersecretary of State 1992-93; R. James Woolsey, Director of Central Intelligence 1993-95, Co-founder, US Energy Security Council; GEN Anthony Zinni, USMC (Ret.), Fmr. Commander in Chief, US Central Command.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, while Congress is dealing with this manufactured sequester crisis, we have a real climate crisis occurring right outside the window. There is clarity on what should be a bipartisan issue with the public. Seven out of 10 Americans believe the scientists that climate change is happening and that humans are making it worse. Every day, Americans see the impact. With record droughts and extreme storm events, 2012 set more than 3,500 monthly records for extreme heat, rain, and snow. This week, 38 leading Republicans and national security advisors urged international action to prevent and mitigate the impact of climate change. The letter highlights the importance of immediate action and expresses national security concerns should we fail to address these issues. We should be addressing the real climate crisis instead of dealing with a phony, made-up fiscal crisis.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, the satisfaction I have that we've finally renewed the Violence Against Women Act is tempered by how hard it was to get the acceptance of two critically important provisions. Why should there be any question about respect for Native Americans' sovereignty in their own territory to protect their own female citizens? Arguments to the contrary are bogus and demeaning. It was also critical that protection be extended to people regardless of their sexual orientation. This victory is a small sign of the shifts in the House where Democrats are united in supporting core values and a minority number of Republicans, increasing in number, are willing to buck their leadership and the Tea Party majority. It would be nice if this could carry forward to other critical issues of the day.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. The sequester drama that we are watching play out this week is exactly why I voted against the New Year's Day budget package. Two months ago, all of the forces were aligned to force a bigger agreement, but we set our sights too low. It generated too little revenue, and, most importantly, there was not a fundamental reform in the way that we do business. We merely put off the fiscal cliff in order to have not one, not two, but three such dramas between now and next summer. Friday is the sequestration; March 27, the continuing resolution runs out; and sometime this summer, the Treasury Department is going to run out of capacity to keep juggling the national debt, and we face that drama all over again. Actually, there's a fourth cliff if you count the so-called ``dairy cliff'' which will potentially double milk prices in September. The path forward is to focus on areas of potential agreement between the right and the left. A great place to start is health care. Reform is taking place around the country. And, in fact, nowhere is it more exciting and promising than what is happening in Oregon where we are working in concert with the implementation of the Health Care Reform Act to squeeze out waste and inefficiency. We are working to reward value instead of volume, and the Federal Government has bet $1.9 billion that we will be able to reduce health care inflation at least 2 percent a year and maintain quality. Helping people stay well rather than paying people for disease and illness is a logical way to go. After all, the Affordable Care Act embedded every one of these major reforms that used to be bipartisan, that had been implemented by business, health care plans in red States and blue States, that had been advocated by Democratic and Republican Governors alike, and, indeed, supported by Members of the House and Senate in both parties. Instead of fighting health care reform, we ought to accelerate it. If we can deliver on the Oregon promise, it in and of itself will save more money nationally over the next 10 years than we're arguing about with the sequestration. We also must address the huge budget challenges that are facing the Pentagon, in large measure because neither it nor Congress has insisted on change and, indeed, in some cases, has institutionalized bad decisions. We haven't scaled back our horribly expensive, outmoded, inefficient nuclear deterrent program, maintaining perhaps 8-10 times the warheads for what we need for actual deterrence today with three massive, expensive, redundant delivery systems that are out of sync with today's threats. We haven't used nuclear weapons for the last 68 years. We probably won't use them for the next 68 years, and there is no imaginable circumstance when we would use even a fraction of the weapons we have. And the cost for that conservatively is in excess of two-thirds of $1 trillion over the next 10 years. We've never come to grips with the cost of an all-volunteer Army. Our forces are significantly above what we had a decade earlier when we were supposedly staffed to fight two wars simultaneously. We need to scale that down, to refocus it, to supplement reductions in troop levels with beefed-up support to the National Guard, which is far more cost-effective and easier on our troops. We need to reform our bloated, fossilized, outdated farm bill to spend less, help more farmers and the environment, and show that we can rise above politics and habits to have a farm program for this century, not 1949. The majority of farmers and ranchers in the United States get nothing. The majority of the support flows to the top 10 percent, who don't need it at all, and it distorts our international trade posture. The final looming threat is the dysfunction, unfairness, and inefficiency of our tax system. It costs us huge sums to administer. It leaks hundreds of billions of dollars in tax avoidance, evasion, and mistakes, to say nothing of misplaced incentives, and it costs over $160 billion a year to administer. Now, clearly there's a need for more revenue in a growing and aging population, but fundamentally, we need a new broad base of support that will help us pay the transition necessary for a reformed system. Madam Speaker, this is not rocket science. This is within our capacity. We ought to get started on it now.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as we lurch into another series of artificial crises surrounding budget sequestration, there is a bright spot this week. We will witness an amazing series of visits on Capitol Hill by members of the Garden Club of America. Celebrating their 100th year as a national organization established in 1913, there is no more awesome group of citizen lobbyists than these women from all across America. I first encountered the women's garden club in the person of the late Nancy Russell, who was a member of the Portland Garden Club and a ferocious, tenacious advocate for the protection of the national treasure that is the Columbia River Gorge. Nancy's personal commitment, insight, drive and passion made it possible for politicians in both parties to enact historic unique legislation protecting the magnificent Columbia River Gorge and establishing a framework of protection for generations to come. Nancy would marshal her argument with facts, was an expert at generating positive publicity, could turn on the charm, and if that didn't work, she could play hardball politics with the best of them. Imagine my surprise and delight in coming to Congress when I found that there were other advocates--although there will never be another Nancy Russell--there are other women from across America who had their own commitment, passion, zeal, focus and follow-through who were enriching their communities while they helped the national conservation discussion. The Garden Club has a broad and ambitious agenda seeking to promote our open spaces, and zealous in their support for our threatened National Park System. They're strong advocates and protectors of the Land and Water Conservation Act and the LWCF funds that have so rarely been fully budgeted in the program's 50 years. Now, global warming inspires heated rhetoric here on Capitol Hill. And while garden club members are deeply concerned about weather instability caused by climate change, they do so with a calm, clear, dispassionate view of the facts in a way that should inspire and encourage everybody here in Congress. For years, they have advocated for a farm bill that was stronger in the areas of nutrition, conservation, and environmental protection while saving money. They advocate harnessing the power of that farm bill to protect sustainable agriculture and the production of specialty crops--which most of America calls ``food''. In the midst of some of the most bizarre accusations one will ever hear, theirs is a clarion call of rationality and wisdom for the ratification of the Treaty of the Sea that is languishing. Despite the support of the Bush, Clinton, and Obama administrations and an unprecedented coalition of business, industry, and educational leaders, the United States continues to be an outlier, to the detriment of our defense and commercial interests. These are just a few of the areas that they concentrate on during their Washington visit. Most important, they connect what is happening at the local level with people who care about clean air, the beauty of the landscape and the treasures that enrich our souls, as well as the things that protect the environment for future generations. I strongly urge my colleagues to find time to visit with the Garden Club representatives from their State not just here in Washington, D.C., this week, but reach out to them at home and hear what they have to say. There will be no more productive meeting you will have with the inspiration that comes from listening to clear-headed, clear-eyed voices of wisdom and restraint. These meetings will stand out as an oasis in the war of words over our next round of manufactured crises.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is extraordinarily frustrating for me that we have spent all week avoiding opportunities to make progress on areas on which we agree to avoid or minimize the effects of the sequester meat axe and instead singled out, again, our federal employees. Suffice it to say, making them a repeated target is unfair, unproductive, and avoids the hard decisions we should be tackling.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, along with a bipartisan group of cosponsors, I am introducing the States' Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act, legislation that will allow medical marijuana patients and businesses--who are complying with state law--the ability to access and distribute marijuana free from federal interference. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have passed laws allowing for the use of medical marijuana for people suffering from conditions such as cancer and severe nausea. As a result there are now hundreds of thousands of medical marijuana patients nationwide. Despite these laws, at the federal level marijuana is currently listed as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act, meaning that it is considered a substance with a ``high potential for abuse,'' with ``no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.'' This means that the 19 jurisdictions that permit medical marijuana are operating in a patchwork of inconsistent local and federal laws. These inconsistencies create significant challenges for both patients and the businesses working to provide access to medical marijuana. Because of federal tax and banking laws, marijuana businesses--despite operating in compliance with state or local law--are not allowed to deduct their legitimate business expenses and are often unable to make deposits or maintain bank accounts. Simultaneously, the federal government has continued to enforce federal law, and many medical marijuana facilities across the country have been raided by the Drug Enforcement Administration or otherwise targeted by the Department of Justice. The federal government maintains a monopoly on access to marijuana for research, currently run by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The mission of this Institute is to ``lead the Nation in bringing the power of science to bear on drug abuse and addiction,'' and many researchers have found it difficult to obtain marijuana for research into the potential therapeutic or medicinal effects of marijuana. The States' Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act would provide for the rescheduling of marijuana under the Controlled Substance Act to a listing other than Schedule I or II, which would mean the federal government recognizes an accepted medical use. It would also ensure that neither the Controlled Substances Act nor the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act would restrict individuals, doctors or businesses from consuming, recommending, producing, distributing or otherwise operating in marijuana in compliance with state or local laws. Finally, it would require that access to marijuana for research into its potential medicinal and therapeutic uses be overseen by an entity in the government not focused on researching the addictive properties of substances. Nineteen jurisdictions have passed laws recognizing the importance of providing access to medical marijuana for the hundreds of thousands of patients who rely on it. It is time for the federal government to respect these decisions, and stop inhibiting safe access.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, part of the air of unreality in Washington is the myth of our inability to contend with budget reductions and the threat of sequestration in stabilizing America's financing. No doubt the draconian hand of across-the-board cuts in every program from food safety to border control to air traffic control would be foolish and destructive. Let me be clear. The major problem in all of this is here in Congress and our political structure, which creates self-inflicted crises. Sequestration and the postal deficit are just two examples. We know what to do, but you would never know it because we spend most of our efforts around here describing and decrying the problems rather than doing something about them. Let me repeat. The amount of budget reduction is something that can, in fact, be managed if only we change how America does business. Nowhere have the cries been more anguished than about the impact of sequestration on the Department of Defense, ironically, from many of the same people who insisted on the sequestration gimmick in the first place. As is widely recognized, sequestration over the next 10 years when applied to the Pentagon's budget would only reduce it in inflation-adjusted terms to what it was in 2007 when the most powerful military in the world was engaged in a war in Iraq and the challenge in Afghanistan. If Members of Congress pay attention to the facts, they will see a clear path to dramatically reduce Pentagon spending without undermining America's position of being the most powerful Nation on the planet. Nobody has done a better job of highlighting a path forward, an area of opportunity, than Walter Pincus, writing in the pages of The Washington Post over the course of the last couple of years as he details the sweep of our nuclear weapons program and the spending trajectory. This morning is his latest offering and should be required reading for every Member of Congress, and the ones who whine the loudest should be forced to read it twice. He details the vast array of nuclear weapons that are ready to be deployed within 30 minutes, a relic of our contending with the former Soviet Union, where deterrence was the order of the day and when we were relying on massive assured mutual destruction of that huge country with overwhelming force. Now, not even the most delusional think we need a fraction of that firepower for today's threats, like North Korea, and it certainly wouldn't work against a nuclear weapon falling in the arms of some radical extremist. That, by the way, is most likely to happen with Pakistan's proven nuclear capability than Iran's, which is still being developed. The cost of this overwhelming force, including its three delivery systems, ought to give people pause. Consider the 14 Ohio class submarines, each with 24 ICBMs and each missile armed with five warheads, each three times the explosive power of the bombs dropped on Japan. We've got 118 B-52 strategic bombers and, of course, all of the land-based missiles where people are in the silos, ready to launch at a moment's notice. It is, by any stretch of the imagination, extravagance that borders on lunacy. The $80 billion the White House was forced to promise for the upgrades on the nuclear weapons complex and the at least $100 billion to replace the strategic delivery systems that were extracted in return for votes to pass the START treaty are obvious places to begin retrenchment. There are tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars to be saved over the next 10 years by refocusing our defense posture for the threats of today and the likely ones of tomorrow. Let's start cutting this massive Cold War deterrence based on the threat of nuclear weapons we've never been able to use, don't want to use, shouldn't use, and can't afford. I invite my colleagues, especially those on the other side of the aisle, to join us in getting real and getting specific. There is a clear path forward that should command the support of Republicans and Democrats alike to achieve fiscal stability. Let's rein in outrageous crop insurance abuses. Don't fight health care reform--accelerate it. The work we're doing in Oregon, if applied nationally, could save up to $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Pay for the privilege of taking America's mineral wealth by reforming the Mining Act of 1872, and slash the fossilized nuclear weapons program.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, one of the few areas where Washington agrees with the general public is that our current path is not sustainable. It is not merely a case of spending too much or taxing too little, although we need to control spending and we must and will be raising revenue to meet the needs of an aging and growing population. The key is to do business differently, to extract more value out of our programs. We need to have the courage to pivot, to do things better, to not follow the reflex of the usual economic and political groups fighting to continue to protect the status quo and the continuing trend lines. In a world already impacted by climate change and global weather instability, these forces are going to intensify. One of the best examples of why we must change is how we deal with reengineering nature as a response to natural disasters. I salute Governor Cuomo for the use of some of the Hurricane Sandy money from the Federal Government to move people out of harm's way, not just throw good money after bad by relocating and rebuilding in exactly the same way, in exactly the same place, where nature repeatedly shows that people are not wanted. I was before the Rules Committee arguing for greater reform in the Federal spending, but the Governor is pointing in the right direction. This week we are watching another chapter in the same drama play out in the lower Mississippi, where there is an argument to continue the self-defeating effort to fortify the Mississippi River, closing a gap in the levee, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to prevent an area in the flood plain from flooding every now and then. The Federal Government has already made periodic flooding in that area as part of its relief valve, to take the excess water and avoid more flooding elsewhere. Failing to allow nature to take its course invites a bigger disaster as more and more water is forced into the narrow fortified walls of the Mississippi. Think about how we have shortened and narrowed that river. We haven't reduced the amount of water; we've just reduced the areas where it can go. It makes the inevitable flooding worse. Building a levee is simply going to move it a little further downstream. The solution is to allow the river to go where nature wants it, not encourage farmers to cultivate even more land that will be vulnerable to crop loss, more disaster relief, more crop insurance loss, and to take away increasingly scarce wildlife habitat for the millions of Americans who would like to hunt and fish. Done right, this can be a virtuous cycle. It saves tax dollars, improves the environment, reduces the damage from flooding and all the attendant costs. It is a classic example of where the Federal Government should learn from 200 years' experience of trying to engineer the Mississippi River and instead allow, in some cases, nature to take its course and avoid more expensive and worse damage. This is what we need to do across the Federal Government. We don't have to spend twice as much money on health care as most of the developed countries for outcomes that are mediocre at best. We don't have to spend more money on defense than 12 or 13 of the remaining largest defense budgets and on weapons that in many cases, like our nuclear arsenal where we have far more than we need and can ever use and can afford, we can pare down, save tens of billions of dollars and still be the most powerful Nation in the world; or the outrageous crop insurance that encourages reckless and expensive behavior by paying farmers to plant crops on land that never should have been cultivated in the first place. While we will control spending and increase revenues, the most important thing we can do is to change the way we do business, using common sense, proven technology, stretching our tax dollars, and making our communities more livable. We can start by not pressuring the Corps of Engineers to complete the levees, spending millions of dollars we don't have on a solution that will make the problem worse. Let's work, instead, to understand the impacts of global warming and extreme weather and then do something about it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, in the midst of budget turmoil, the upcoming debt ceiling limit, and looming sequestration cuts, I am introducing legislation that could save American taxpayers almost $40 billion over the next 5 years. Right now, Americans are subsidizing some of the largest and most profitable companies in the world with their tax dollars. Taxpayers currently subsidize oil injection, extraction, exploration, drilling, injection, manufacturing, pricing, and inventory valuing, by offsetting foreign taxes, providing generous credits and deductions, and offering tax shelters. The ``End Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act,'' would end 10 of the most egregious tax loopholes enjoyed by the oil industry--tax loopholes that have helped BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Shell make a combined profit of nearly $1 trillion over the past decade. The legislation is modeled on President Obama's proposal to eliminate oil and gas tax preferences in his FY 2013 Budget. Extremely profitable, well-established, large corporations do not need enormous subsidies from the government and we simply cannot afford to let them continue. It is well established in a global petroleum market that this subsidy has zero impact on reducing prices for American consumers. Instead of padding the bottom of oil companies, this money could be better spent renewing and rebuilding our nation's infrastructure. It could be used to stave off some of the most draconian cuts that families will face this spring if Congress does not act on sequestration. Finally, the resources could be redirected to level the playing field for emerging technologies like wind and solar. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, due to a long-scheduled event, I was unable to be in Washington, DC for the votes that occurred on February 4, 2013. As a result, I missed the votes listed below. I regret missing these and had I been in Washington, DC, I would have voted as follows: H.R. 297: Children's Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2013--I would have voted yes on H.R. 297. This critical legislation, to extend and reauthorize payments to children's hospitals so that they can continue to educate the next generation of doctors, is essential not just for my district, but the entire country. As we move forward with implementing the Affordable Care Act and expanding access to health services for millions of U.S. citizens, it's essential that we continue to grow our medical workforce by partnering with our local hospitals. H.R. 225: National Pediatric Research Network Act of 2013--I would have voted yes on H.R. 225. This legislation furthers pediatric medical research by bringing together a spectrum of experts working to advance treatments and cures for our children. By using a consortium model, doctors and researchers will be fighting disease instead of with each other for scarce research dollars.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce the Marijuana Tax Equity Act of 2013, legislation to create a federal excise tax on marijuana sales and move this industry out of the shadows and into the daylight. Just over 106 million people live in a state or local jurisdiction that has decided that some aspect of marijuana use should be legally permitted. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia currently allow for medical marijuana and two states, Colorado and Washington, recently legalized the recreational use of small amounts of marijuana. National trends reflect those state efforts. More than 40 percent of Americans over the age of 12 have tried marijuana at least once and public opinion research reveals half of the U.S. population supports legalization. Yet even as states and local governments have taken the lead in finding legal arrangements for marijuana, millions of people have been caught in the justice system for marijuana offenses and more than 660,000 people were arrested for marijuana possession in 2011. At the same time, the federal government spends approximately $5.5 billion per year on incarceration and enforcement associated with federal marijuana laws. In addition, many marijuana businesses around the country--despite operating in compliance with state or local law--are not allowed to deduct their legitimate business expenses and often are unable to make deposits or maintain accounts as a result of federal banking laws. It is time for Congress to end the federal prohibition on marijuana, remove it from the Controlled Substances Act, and create a tax and regulatory framework, similar to the frameworks in place for alcohol and tobacco. This represents a unique opportunity to save ruined lives, wasted enforcement and prison costs, while simultaneously helping to create a new industry, with new jobs and revenues that will improve the federal budget outlook. The Marijuana Tax Equity Act creates a taxation framework similar to that in place for the tobacco and alcohol industries. It imposes an excise tax of 50 percent on the first sale by a producer, generally the grower, to the next stage of production, generally the processor creating the useable product. Along the supply chain it requires occupational taxes for those operating marijuana businesses. Those who do not comply with the taxation laws face civil or criminal penalties similar to those in place for the tobacco industry. The bill requires the IRS to produce periodic studies of the industry and make recommendations to Congress. As I work with my colleagues and with our stakeholders to move forward with this legislation, I emphasize that there remain significant questions and challenges. In particular, in the context of legislation, significant changes will ripple through the marijuana industry, with new products created, new business relationships developed, new consumer standards demanded, and wide variations in state and local laws. As this process evolves, we hope to work with the industry to ensure that the tax rate and framework appropriately reflects federal concerns and the needs of this developing industry. I am committed to ensuring that the legislation's terms are adequately tailored to reflect the realities faced by marijuana businesses and consumers in an ever-shifting market. In addition, the medical marijuana industry has distinct concerns about safe access and those should be adequately addressed in the federal framework. Together with my colleagues, I look forward to continuing our efforts on ensuring safe access for patients within the context of an administrable tax and regulatory regime. It is important to note that states will remain free to make decisions about marijuana policy. Paired with Representative Polis' ``Ending the Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act,'' this legislation establishes a starting point for laying out a federal regulatory and taxation framework for marijuana sales that are legal under state law.