Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, since I was a high school student, I've watched the escalation of the war on drugs, especially marijuana. I slowly became aware of its widespread use. As a freshman legislator in Oregon 40 years ago, my opinion was set by a hog farmer from eastern Oregon who was a State representative named Stafford Hansell. Stafford held the Oregon House, and the people crowded into the gallery spellbound with his tutorial on marijuana and its comparison to other addictive substances, both legal and illegal. This older gentleman, who didn't smoke, didn't drink alcohol--let alone use marijuana--made his case. He pointed out how tobacco was highly addictive and killed hundreds of thousands of Americans per year. He discussed alcohol, whose damaging properties had once led the country into a foolish, costly and ultimately self-defeating experiment with prohibition. Alcohol use was damaging for some, led to dependency for many, while contributing to tens of thousands of highway deaths every year, and serious health problems for countless others. By the time Representative Hansell got to marijuana, he'd convinced me that the bill he was advocating--two plant legalization--was not just worthy of my support, which I was already inclined to do, but something that I should advocate that Oregonians should be allowed this choice, less damaging and addicting than tobacco. We didn't legalize marijuana in 1973, although I was assured that if the 22 of us who had voted for the bill had been supported by the people who used it but voted no, the measure would have passed easily. We did make Oregon the first State to decriminalize the use of marijuana. Possession of a small amount was made a minor infraction, treated like a traffic ticket. Today, 40 years later, the case is even more compelling. Fourteen States have now decriminalized policies like Oregon passed in 1973. In 1996, California pioneered the legal use of medical marijuana whose therapeutic qualities have long been known and employed. And since then, 18 States and the District of Columbia have approved medical marijuana initiatives, allowing its use to relieve chronic pain, nausea, and other conditions. Notably, two-thirds of these approvals were a result of voter initiatives. Last fall, voters in Colorado and Washington approved adult recreational use with 55 percent approval margins. Studies show that a majority of Americans now agree that marijuana should be legalized. It is time that the Federal Government revisit its policies. Drugs with less serious classifications, like methamphetamine and cocaine, have more serious health and behavioral impacts; yet marijuana retains its Schedule I classification. In 2011, two-thirds of a million people were arrested for using a substance that millions use, many more have tried, and a majority of Americans feel should be legal. Because there are stark racial differences in enforcement and incarceration, there are wide disparities in the legal treatment for communities of color versus their white counterparts. Medical marijuana is widely accepted but subject to inherent conflict with Federal law that is unfair, confusing and costly. A bipartisan group of legislators is developing a comprehensive package of legislation to clarify and reform outdated, ineffective, and unwise Federal policies. In a time of great fiscal stress and a sea change in opinion of voters, this is a unique opportunity to save money on enforcement and incarceration, avoid unnecessary conflict and harsh treatment of users, provide a framework for medical marijuana, and even reduce the deficit--all by honoring the wish of two-thirds of Americans to respect states' rights for marijuana, just like we do for alcohol. I would invite my colleagues to join this effort in developing a marijuana policy that makes sense for America today.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. We continue to talk past one another. The issue isn't passing a budget or not passing a budget. The issue is whether or not we're going to take fundamental steps to reform the way that we spend money around here. The Republican budget of my good friend, Mr. Ryan, that they've passed on a couple of occasions would have required 9 trillion dollars in additional debt ceiling increase and wouldn't be balanced for two decades. Let's stop playing games with the form, and let's sit down and work on the things we agree upon. I think the American public would support us if we took out tens of billions of dollars of unnecessary spending for redundant nuclear weapons; to reform the scandal that is the crop insurance program that incents people to plant land that they shouldn't plant and drives up losses. Let's accelerate health care reform like we're doing in Oregon that would save over a trillion dollars if it were applied nationally. Let's get down and do it. Act, don't debate.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. It was exciting to hear the President make climate change a major focus of his inaugural address, and appropriately so. Mr. Obama's first term provided stark evidence of the peril to the planet: record-breaking heat waves, drought, hurricanes, forest fires, disappearing polar ice, all in accord with a prediction of the climate scientists, but the effects were happening faster and more severely than predicted. The good news is that you don't have to believe the climate scientists to reduce carbon pollution and energy waste while reasserting American global energy leadership. Even balancing the budget could be made easier with this initiative. Congress and the administration should begin serious conversation about a broad-based carbon tax. This would give the right signals on energy sources and use. It could raise money to reduce the deficit, restore our badly damaged infrastructure, speed and finance conservation while cushioning the impact on lower-income families and small business. There are a number of other commonsense steps that would make progress on carbon pollution and energy conservation goals much more significant. First, the EPA should stop dragging its feet, permitting old, polluting, inefficient coal plants to continue to spew forth toxic waste harming not just the environment but the health of our citizens. It's past time that the Clean Air Act should be enforced. We should make sure there are proper safeguards for the fracking technology for gas and petroleum and making sure this vast reservoir of inexpensive gas does not undercut the critical addition of renewables to our energy portfolio: solar, wind, geothermal, perhaps even tidal energy. We need global leadership on these technologies for a balanced energy portfolio and, ultimately, to reduce our carbon footprint. At each step, we should be looking to enhance energy conservation, because the cheapest kilowatt hour is one that you don't have to generate and use. We should have a 10-year glide path in our support of renewable energy. The wind energy industry has already signaled receptivity to phasing out its subsidy, just giving it enough time to come to scale and then stand on its own. It's such a good idea, we should do the same thing for the petroleum industry. After 100 years, the most profitable commodity on the planet is mature and will be able to survive and even thrive without additional tax incentives. Finally, and most important, we should have the Federal Government lead by example. The Department of Energy's management of four large power marketing agencies should be the gold standard for integrating renewables into the grid, upgrading transmission capacity, and leading on conservation. The GSA, with over 300 million square feet of Federal office space should demand that all our facilities, every square foot we lease, buy, or build, should be of the highest energy efficiency. The Federal fleet should be on the cutting edge of fuel efficiency standards. Finally, the Department of Defense, the largest consumer of energy in the world, needs to redouble its efforts. The Pentagon is already moving in the right direction. But it's not just about saving money in the long term; it's providing operational flexibility and reducing vulnerability from inefficient and dangerous fossil fuels. Those fuel tanker trucks in Afghanistan and Iraq might as well have had great big bull's eyes on them for terrorists. The military knows this, and we should give maximum support even in a time of gradually reducing Pentagon budgets. This will pay dividends for defense and to our family's budget if the Pentagon gets it right. It's clear that America is ready and equal to this challenge. The President has signaled his interest and leadership. The question is whether Congress is equal to the challenge, ready with innovation, cooperation, and leadership.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, due to a family emergency, I was unable to be in Washington, D.C. for the votes that occurred on January 3, 2013 and January 4, 2013 and was not sworn in as a Member of Congress until January 14, 2013. As a result, I missed the votes listed below. I regret missing these votes but it was necessary to be in Portland for my family. Had I been in Washington, D.C., I would have voted as follows: H. Resolution 5: A resolution providing for the House Rules of the 113th Congress I would have voted no on H. Res, 5. The House Rules package maintains the House of Representative's discriminatory stance on the Defense of Marriage Act, which I have opposed, restricts the District of Columbia's electoral representation, prohibits the House of Representatives from acting on health care recommendations from a nonpartisan scientific panel, and supports the partisan and unnecessary attacks on Attorney General Eric Holder. H.R. 41: To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program I would have voted yes on H.R. 41. To limit the danger of future storms, it is important to ensure the careful reconstruction of areas damaged by Hurricane Sandy. That effort will take many years, however, and should not unnecessarily limit access to resources provided by the National Flood Insurance Program. I support the increased lending authority to that program to ensure adequate support to victims of Hurricane Sandy. H.R. 219: Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 I would have voted to approve this legislation, which combines several changes the House had previously supported to improve recovery projects for Hurricane Sandy.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, although I am not opposed, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition in order to yield it to my friend from New Jersey because there are important messages to be heard.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I strongly support what is going on, and I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey to make sure that everybody from the affected area has an opportunity to be heard.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. My friend from Georgia completely misses the point. Mr. Holt pointed out that this being able to process this ground-based information is important to being able to fully utilize the information from the polar satellite. The last Congress behaved recklessly, candidly, in terms of jeopardizing the flow of this information. It was not treated appropriately in terms of the budget. I think that this is an opportunity to accelerate in a small way something that is an emergency, tell the people who have been faced with a chain of natural disasters and storms where we have been able to refine our predictions. We can't stop the weather, but we can save lives, and this will get us back on track a little bit. I cannot imagine a more misguided offset. If anything, we should be accelerating this work more. I strongly urge its rejection.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I would offer the amendment on behalf of my colleague, Mr. Campbell, and myself.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. I must acknowledge the collaboration and support of my good friend and the cosponsor of the amendment, Mr. Campbell from California. The amendment is a simple clarification to ensure that the Frelinghuysen amendment doesn't put taxpayers on the hook for 100 percent of the cost of projects that are unrelated to Hurricane Sandy. The amendment waives the standard local cost-share for ongoing construction projects. This applies to beach renourishment projects, which are typically cost-shared at a 65 percent Federal and 35 percent local share. While the waiving of this local cost-share for this type of project is unprecedented, I understand that for our friends in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut, Hurricane Sandy was also unprecedented. Our amendment does not change the language with respect to repairing the beaches damaged by Hurricane Sandy, but unfortunately the language could be interpreted to also waive local cost-share for future periodic beach replenishment unrelated to any damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. These typically can take up to over a 50-year period and can cost tens of millions of dollars. I'm confident that is not what was intended by the amendment as it was offered. But the amendment is necessary to make sure that that's not how it's interpreted at some point in the future. Madam Chair, my heart goes out to the communities in the Northeast that have been devastated by Hurricane Sandy. I have strongly supported the efforts of the people in the region to step forward and be fully compensated to be able to have a robust package. I'm sorry that it's delayed, and I commend the leadership that has been displayed on both sides of the aisle. I strongly support having the Federal Government provide assistance for people not only to recover, but to rebuild in a way that is stronger and safer. But it does not make sense to use this legislation to change standard, non-Federal cost-share procedures for projects unrelated to Hurricane Sandy. Doing so, I think, would be fiscally irresponsible, and it decrease local communities' involvement and investment in local projects that primarily benefit them and I'm afraid might be a reason for opposition for legislation that I hope passes. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would be happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I deeply appreciate the hard work and the acceptance of the amendment. I look forward to moving forward with the passage of this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as the 112th Congress ends with a whimper, not a bang, not so much finished as worn out, I was prepared to come to the floor this morning and talk about some of the unfinished business that we kicked down the road with a proposal last night: a serious deficit reduction, the debt ceiling, tax reform. One thing I didn't expect to be confronted with is what you have been hearing from my colleagues today, that we do not have the time to address the disaster relief for Hurricane Sandy, which everybody thought was a given. This is the crew that came to town shouting ``read the bill,'' that they were going to have 72 hours' regular order to move in a fashion. They gave us 154 pages, 24,000 words nobody had read, but we at least thought we would be dealing today with this emergency assistance. I am stunned, frankly, that we find ourselves in this situation, but we have 24 hours left. How hard would it be to take up a bill that was already overwhelmingly passed by the Senate? How hard could it be, based on the bipartisan expression last night of support for a bill that almost everybody hated and had reservations about but would come together for something they thought was important for the country? Remember when rebuilding and renewing America was a bipartisan objective? Maybe we could take a little bit of that spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation last night and rise to the occasion in the next 24 hours to do something for the people who deserve our help and support. If not, then it ought to be the first order of business of the new Congress, and we ought not to go home this week until this matter is addressed.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. The agreement we are expected to vote on, perhaps as early as this afternoon, has many commendable and important items. Unfortunately, too many are short term; much is left out; and most important, we are losing an opportunity for reform. We cannot continue to have, by far, the world's largest and most expensive military, the world's lowest taxes, the most expensive and inefficient health care system, and continue to allow our country's infrastructure to fall apart all while America grows and ages. This agreement represents absolutely the least we could have done under these circumstances and tragically institutionalizes for the next Congress the madness of short-term frenzy around artificial deadlines that drives the American public crazy. Not only can we do better; we must do better. This flawed, partial plan is not just a lost opportunity; it represents a real setback.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. This evening, we're expected to vote on an item that has many commendable and important items. Unfortunately, too many are of short duration, much is left out, and most importantly we're losing a real opportunity for reform. The SGR is left in a year to torment medical providers again. The AMT, I'm pleased, is patched--I appreciate the advocacy of my friend, Mr. Neal. But, in fact, we all know that it should, at a minimum, be reformed, if not repealed. We have a body blow to the alternative energy industry, and somehow it's given a year's reprieve, but it's not what they need or what they deserve. And because we refuse, at a moment of opportunity, to deal meaningfully with the national debt--and remember, the budget from my Republican friends, authored by my colleague, Mr. Ryan, would have required $6 trillion headroom in the debt ceiling. Now, we cannot continue to have the world's largest and most expensive military by far, the lowest taxes of any of the major economies, the most expensive and inefficient health care, and continue to allow our country's infrastructure to fall apart while America ages and grows. This proposal represents absolutely the least we could have done under these circumstances and, tragically, institutionalizes for the next Congress the madness around here of short-term frenzy around self- inflicted deadlines that have no reality to them. That drives the American public crazy, and with good reason. Not only can we do better, I would suggest that we must do better.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. It's probably going to pass with overwhelming bipartisan support. So be it. I can only hope that, in that spirit of taking a risk on both sides of the aisle--and both parties and the administration--that the administration and the new Congress gets serious about reform and delivering services more cost-effectively in ways, ironically, that people on both sides of the aisle agree with that are absent in this proposal.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Congress is here on New Year's Eve with the people they love: themselves, the special interests, and the policies of the past. The overhyped fiscal cliff may well be upon us, and we will find $600 billion of deficit reduction with tax increases and spending cuts, and then there will be the howls that we are doing it too abruptly from some of the same people who demanded this system of expiring cuts and sequestration in the first place. Make no mistake. There will be some real damage. We will be squeezing some people who deserve far better, and then we'll be scrambling to refine the budget reductions in a way that makes sense. And some time in the hours, days, and weeks ahead, we will get a semibalanced small agreement, very likely, struggling throughout the new Congress with budget bluster, especially in the House, moving from crisis to deadline to showdown. It's ironic because it doesn't need to be this hard. We could use the pressure and revenue from expiring temporary tax cuts to enact tax reform to provide the money that a growing and aging American population needs, but do it in a simpler, fairer way. We could actually reduce entitlement spending on Medicare by accelerating the health care reform, which is what, in Oregon, we've committed to do in exchange for some flexibility and some upfront funding. We have in place a program going forward that, if done on a national level, would save over $1 trillion over the next 10 years. We shouldn't be fooling around with patching an outmoded, unfair farm bill. Let's reform it to support family farmers and ranchers, beginning farmers, especially those who grow food, not large agribusiness producing heavily subsidized commodities. We can save money, protect the environment, enhance wildlife, the experience for hunters and fishermen, and have a healthier America. The military is the greatest source of money. We can start with 135,000 soldiers scattered in over 1,000 bases across the globe. We have a nuclear arsenal where we are spending several hundred billion dollars on weapons we can't use, we don't need and can't afford. Mr. Speaker, the good news is that the public would support us in these steps. The good news is that, if we ever got the chance to consider them in a fair and open debate on the floor of the House, we would find bipartisan support for each of these real saving options. The good news is that, ultimately, we are going to take these steps, proving, once again, the wisdom of Winston Churchill when he observed that you could always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they have exhausted every other possibility.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today, I voted against the Fiscal Year 2013 Intelligence Authorization Act. Despite keeping funding levels flat and capping personnel levels to that of Fiscal Year 2012, this authorization is not significantly different than the earlier version I voted against in May. It is another missed opportunity to make significant, smart reductions in our intelligence infrastructure, at a time when we're asking so many others to make significant budgetary sacrifices in the midst of austerity. This legislation continues to spend way too much money--$72 to $78 billion a year--with little transparency or efforts to reduce the sprawling intelligence community and protect privacy rights. It's of paramount importance to keep our country safe, and that's exactly what our intelligence community has done, but we cannot afford to spend as much on intelligence as Russia does on its entire military budget or employ hundreds of thousands of people with secret clearance.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this defense authorization legislation is a missed opportunity. Our Republican friends would have us approve this at a time when we're struggling with the long-term fiscal stability of the United States. We're set to pass a bill that authorizes funding above what we approved in the Budget Control Act. This is spending 20 percent above the Cold War average, double what we had in 2001. Even if somehow we went over that dreaded fiscal cliff and sequestration kicked in, it would only reduce spending to what it was in 2007, adjusted for inflation, when we were fighting two wars. It's a missed opportunity. I heard my friend from Utah talk about avoiding any increase in fee in terms of health care. Excuse me? We're looking at draconian impacts that some are suggesting for some of our society's most vulnerable. And, here, we haven't adjusted a fee since 1995. The Department of Defense is going to spend $50 billion on health care. It's gone up 300 percent since 2001. Ten million people are involved, and they count it as a point of pride that we're not making any adjustment at all? For a retired three or four star general earning a pension of over $200,000 a year, 80 percent of whom go to work for the defense industry, and they pay a $50 fee? I'm sorry, I think it's a missed opportunity. I heard my friend from Utah talk about the nuclear arsenal and upgrading intercontinental ballistic missiles. I think this is a missed opportunity. Look at the nuclear arsenal, we're spending over $55 billion a year--we don't know how much more because that information isn't readily available--for weapons that have not enabled us to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan. Many of these weapons we can't use, will never use, but we're going to spend $200 billion upgrading the arsenal over the next 10 years. And we're looking at three separate delivery systems, including new submarines at almost $5 billion a piece. Against whom? We need a tiny fraction of this to deal with China or Russia. Our nuclear arsenal isn't stopping Iran from trying to achieve its nuclear weapon. These are sad, missed opportunities to right-size the military, which will still be the most powerful in the world, by far.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. For us to deal with the threats that we face today, to deal with the damage that we have done in the reckless misguided war in Iraq, to be able to deal meaningfully with the Guard and Ready Reserve that should be upgraded and healed from the damage that was inflicted upon them. We can provide far more real security, save tax dollars, deal with the needs of veterans that are about to be, sadly, undercut, and provide balance to our budget. In fact, the fiscal instability from reckless bills like this is, in fact, a national security threat. We're no longer going to be able nor should we pay almost half the world's entire military spending. We should start by rejecting this authorization.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the reality behind the fiscal cliff is that, if we really get down to work, talking with one another, digging into the details, it really is not that hard. The nuclear arsenal is a prime example and something that doesn't get nearly the attention it deserves. It is an illustration of why the fiscal sequestration level over the next 10 years for the Department of Defense, which would bring it down to 2007 spending levels, adjusted for inflation, is really not that draconian. During the Cold War, the United States spent, on average, $35 billion a year on its nuclear weapons complex. Today it spends an estimated $55 billion. The nuclear weapons budget is spread across the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security. And the government doesn't publicly disclose how much it is, but the last year that the elements were aggregated together, it spent at least $52.4 billion. That's in 2008, according to the Carnegie Endowment for Peace. That doesn't include classified programs, and it was 5 times the State Department budget, 7 times the EPA, and 14 times what the Department of Energy spent on everything else it does. Indeed, the President agreed to a $200 billion modernization in order to secure the approval of the strategic arms reduction treaty in the Senate. Well, perhaps it's time for us to take a step back and ask what is actually the purpose. Who is the enemy that this nuclear arsenal is going to deter? The nuclear arsenal didn't stop Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. It's not helping us at all with the terrorists who are now the central focus of our security concerns. It doesn't help in Iraq or Afghanistan, and we basically have a stalemate between Russia and China. Nuclear weapons have not been used since World War II. They likely never will be, so why do we need land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, bombers, and submarine launch delivery systems, all three of them? Do we really need 12 new strategic submarines that will cost almost $5 billion a year, if we're lucky and contain costs? Who actually is being deterred by this massive spending and buildup? Exactly what are the circumstances 30 years from now that call for this massive stockpile of weapons and three redundant delivery systems? You know, recent articles in the Post by Walter Pincus really focused on this. There's Dana Priest's work also in the Post; GAO reports--you don't have to dig very deeply to find out that this is a bloated, flawed program with little technical benefit for us now, a great deal of fiscal pain currently and well into the future. Twenty-one years ago, President George H.W. Bush unilaterally announced the elimination of thousands of land-based tactical nuclear weapons stationed in Europe and an end to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons on surface ships, attack submarines, and land-based Naval aircraft. Billions had been spent over the years on such weapons, but there was really never any plans for how to use them. Most have been dismantled, and the United States today is no weaker. Most, frankly, have not even noticed. What could we accomplish over the next 10 years with the same sort of bold thinking on the part of the President, the Pentagon, and Members in Congress? It's time that we find out.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I strongly identify with the persistence and the eloquence from Chairman Johnson and my friend, Mr. Doggett, to deal with this problem of identity theft. The hearing was a little unnerving. I appreciate the follow-through and, hopefully, something will happen. I identify strongly with the arguments you made on behalf of it. But I would like to focus, if I could, on one other element because it's directly related. And I see my good friend, Mr. Gerlach, is here on the floor, and I anticipate will be speaking to it as well. We should be concerned about maybe learning another lesson from the Department of Defense, which, as the chairman mentioned, is already using this for their purposes. Being able to use an opportunity for a Common Access Card for Medicare will have very important application to the area of rampant Medicare fraud. Sixty billion dollars is the number we have heard in our subcommittee. It could be more, it could be less, but it's a huge sum of money, and it compounds going forward. Our first concern, however, should be about the quality of care for the senior citizens who receive Medicare. And the Common Access Card, being able to digitally track this information, provides security for these transactions, makes it less likely that there will be mistakes, be able to follow up and follow through. Second, it will, in fact, help us stop fraud. This is an area that has been relentlessly abused, where people order, there are changes in the order, sometimes orders are actually made that are entirely different than what people had requested. Having this secure card will enable people to be able to have the security of the transaction, know where it's at, greater accuracy of billing, track mistakes, stop fraud. And I cannot say strongly enough that I think it's important for us to move. I appreciate the work that was done putting a study over the next 2 years about this provision. But with all due respect, I hope, as this legislation works its way through Congress--and I hope that it is yet enacted while we are still here for the 112th Congress--that we're able to be serious not just about a 2-year study. This is an area in which we ought to be able to implement pilot projects right now across the country. It would make a difference for the administration. I think there's no question we could come to scale very quickly, help senior citizens and the reliability of their Medicare coverage, reduce fraud, and allow government to track our activities going forward. There's a lot of talk about the fiscal cliff and the need to save money and the back and forth that's going on here. But this provision that Mr. Gerlach and I are advancing is a simple, commonsense, bipartisan proposal that would help us right now improve service, save money, and improve the reliability of the system. I would hope that this is the sort of provision that would find favor with our colleagues in the House, and with the administration, working together, we can implement those pilot projects sooner rather than later and have broader application for great, positive effect for Medicare, for the taxpayers.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, the jarring violence of last week seared into our consciousness. It started in Portland, Oregon, with a mall shooting that might have been worse, and ended in Newton, Connecticut, where it's impossible to imagine that it could have been worse. It's part of an ongoing pattern of carnage because we lose one life to gun violence every 20 minutes every hour every day. The mass murderer's rampage gets the Nation's attention, but the same total loss of life at Sandy Hook happens more than twice every day all year long. This is personal for me not just because the mall shooter was in my district, but I had a high school friend who was killed with a random, freak drive-by shooting. My brother took his life with a handgun as a young man. I've supported gun safety provisions at the State and Federal level at every opportunity. It might be different now, not just because of the horrific images of parades of funerals for little children. I salute Mayor Bloomberg's unstinting advocacy for gun safety and mobilizing America's mayors who bear the brunt of gun violence. I welcome the President's leadership and will support any reform that he advances. But I would urge my colleagues to read the columns in the Sunday Times by my fellow Oregonian, Nick Kristof, and Ezra Klein's article in yesterday's Washington Post. They demonstrate we know what works. There are examples around the world. Even in America with lax, weak gun protections, there are, in fact, some regulations in some places, and they make a difference. Let's treat gun violence like any public health crisis, which I would say losing 30,000 lives a year would qualify as a crisis. We need to treat it like the threat to public health and families that it is, treat a gun like any other consumer product. This is how we slashed the auto death rate--vehicle design and driver behavior, enforcement and education. For guns, it starts when Congress stops being intimidated by the extremists, and then just do what the majority of gun owners agree we should do--renew the assault weapon ban which many of us will introduce under the leadership of our dear friend and colleague, Carolyn McCarthy; ban large magazines and the most devastating bullets; and close the gun show loophole. These are for starters, things that NRA members agree with. Let's care as much about real guns as we do about toy gun consumer protection to start us down the road of making our children safer, by treating children's gun safety like their auto safety. With all the airbags, anti-drunk driving campaigns, child seats, driver education, careful licensing, we slashed the accident rate. Yes, it didn't eliminate accidents all together. But we can't imagine a world without these protections for our families. Let's see if we can imagine a world where our children are safer from gun violence, and then make it happen.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. It's difficult to focus on the task at hand in the aftermath of a shooting rampage in my district yesterday. With at least 10,000 people in a shopping mall, a young man allegedly, say some eyewitnesses, in body armor, and armed with a semiautomatic weapon discharged 60 or more shots. There were two people killed and a young 15-year-old girl seriously wounded. Mr. Speaker, one is haunted by these events. We had one in Aurora, Colorado, at the theater where there were 12 people killed, 60 wounded; six people killed at the Sikh temple this summer; and the day spa in Milwaukee, where three women were killed before the shooter turned the gun on himself. We had a horrific episode earlier in my congressional career in Springfield, Oregon. It is hard to have meaningful conversations on a variety of subjects. I was going to deal with that problem with the fiscal cliff today, but gun violence is another area in America where it seems we can't have a discussion without delusional claims of overreach and taking away hunting rifles. Congress won't even allow statistics on gun violence to be gathered, and we certainly have made no progress towards closing the gun show loophole. Yet I come today, in the aftermath of this tragedy, with a small ray of hope. When nearly half of all military suicides are committed with privately owned weapons, the Pentagon and Congress are moving towards establishing policies to separate at-risk servicemembers from personal private weapons. Congress is poised to enact legislation to end a prohibition about the military collecting information about firearms kept at home. These are simple, commonsense steps for an armed services where more military personnel take their own life than who die in battle. Perhaps if we can take these reasonable steps to protect our servicemen and their families, perhaps we can develop the courage to treat the epidemic of gun violence with the same thoughtful, small steps when it comes to protecting the rest of our families. Until then, we will mourn the victims and thank God that our families were not at that mall.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, in my district at the Clackamas Town Center, a masked gunman with a stolen semi-automatic rifle discharged some 60 shots. He killed two people, wounded a 15- year-old girl, and then took his own life. This terrible tragedy could have been far worse, as the gunman had several fully loaded magazines and there were over 10,000 people shopping and working in the shopping center. The police were on the scene in 1 minute. Countless lives were saved due to careful preparation, emergency procedures, and the courage and foresight of law enforcement and the General Growth Properties mall management. My colleagues from Oregon and I would ask that the House observe a moment of silence in the memory of the victims, Steve Forsyth and Cindy Ann Yuille, and their families.