Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would also like to congratulate the gentleman from Utah on the occasion of his birthday and convey my warm birthday wishes to the gentleman from Utah. Despite it being his birthday, however, I have to disagree with much of what he said regarding the rule and the bill. I rise in opposition to the rule and the bill. This is an important debate that our country has had for generations with regard to State sovereignty and the role of the Federal Government. It is an ongoing discussion since the revolutionary discussions of Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton. And as the pendulum of popular discourse swings back and forth on this fundamental issue, our country has concluded without a doubt that at the very least there are certain decisions that affect the whole country and interstate commerce that cannot be made unilaterally by different States. That is true for civil rights with regard to the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. It is true for immigration, which can only be addressed at a national level, and it is undoubtedly also true, as I will describe, for the protection of our environment and public health. Responsibility is fundamentally an American value, taking responsibility for your own actions. But, Mr. Speaker, cancer clusters, polluted air and polluted water don't know State boundaries. The Cuyahoga on its way to Lake Erie literally caught on fire from overpollution when the Clean Water Act was written. It wouldn't stop burning simply because of a State borderline. Spilled oil in Montana's Yellowstone River won't stop at the border of North Dakota as it joins the Missouri River and makes its way down to the mighty Mississippi. Maintaining the Federal Government's basic safety net, the Clean Water Act, ensures that each State meets the basic safety standards in their own way, giving them flexibility; but it is a critical application of Federal authority with regard to interstate commerce and interstate activities. The interstate nature of polluted air, polluted water and the devastating effects that pollution has on all of our health, as well as our economy and jobs with regard to recreational opportunities, demonstrates clearly that it is an issue that should be confronted by all of our States together in the United States of America here at the seat of the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, let's not fool ourselves. The bill before us today isn't just about the role of the Federal Government. The bill isn't just a push for State sovereignty. Rather, this bill is satisfying two very niche special interests at the cost of the American public. This bill is designed to benefit mountaintop coal mining companies and large factory farms. H.R. 2018 would restrict EPA's ability to revise an existing water quality standard or promulgate a new one, unless the State concurs, effectively giving veto power to each State. It would prohibit EPA from rejecting a water quality certification granted by a State. It would prohibit EPA from withdrawing approval of a State or from limiting Federal financial assistance for the State program if a State is out of compliance with water quality standards. Mr. Speaker, mountaintop coal mining deserves a legitimate debate here in this body, and perhaps the gentleman from Utah and I might agree on some parts of that and disagree on others. That debate needs to carefully examine the arguments of jobs in the coal industry, energy independence versus environmental and public health concerns, also legitimate concerns; but that debate shouldn't be held under the guise of State control or under the guise of water pollution permits. This is a backdoor handout for a few destructive companies. It is not something that should be discussed under the concept of federalism. I, for one, think that oversight of mountaintop mining is critical; and, again, I am happy to have that discussion. Continued handouts to the coal industry keep us addicted to a dirty source of energy when more jobs and a better standard of living and true energy independence are possible today through clean energy born of American innovation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, there are ongoing negotiations about how to deal with our Nation's budget deficit. And while we need to make the tough cuts as part of the package, we also need new revenues. One idea for new revenues would be to regulate and tax marijuana and hemp across the country. Fifteen States and the District of Columbia have various level of degrees of medical marijuana or legalized medical marijuana. And yet rather than have any tax at the Federal level that actually produces income, we effectively have 100 percent tax; namely, it's confiscated by the Federal Government if it's discovered. By reducing the tax rate on marijuana and hemp to be in line with alcohol and tobacco, we will generate tens of billions of dollars for revenue to reduce the deficit, and it won't make marijuana or hemp legal in any jurisdiction in this country where it is currently illegal. It will simply collect revenue from the States that have chosen to go down the route of medical marijuana or marijuana legalization and create revenue for the taxpayers to bring to the table as part of this deficit deal. I encourage my colleagues to support reducing the marijuana tax.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I don't agree with what the gentleman from Ohio said. I don't believe that this should be yet another unfunded mandate on the States. While the number of unregulated facilities has more than doubled in the last decade, many State enforcement budgets have been flat when adjusted for inflation. In New York, for example, the number of regulated polluters has almost doubled in the last decade, but the number of inspections have remained the same. Again, my amendment gives the State the ability to send habitual bad actors to the EPA, not for the worst punishment, not for some change in authority, not for some overreach, but simply for closer scrutiny. My amendment does not affect punishment. It simply allows the EPA to keep a close eye on the frequent violator in support of the State, as is the practice with significant noncompliance. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment to ensure that the worst violators are properly inspected in support of State regulation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, our country's worst polluters don't deserve a get out of jail free card. I think that's an unintended consequence of the current language of the bill, absent this amendment. And I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to adopt this amendment. Regardless of one's position on the underlying bill, one thing I hope we can all agree on is that the most egregious polluters--these are polluters that Republican and Democratic State administrations, Republican and Democratic experts agree are the most egregious polluters, those who simply disregard the law knowingly, those who repeatedly ignore State regulation, are bad actors and they should not be among those who benefit from this bill. The States deserve to have the EPA back them up and help them keep tabs on these polluters who continually violate State rules. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these polluters have escaped not only punishment but simply increased scrutiny. Polluters that continually violate the law are classified as ``significant noncompliance.'' That's the term that's used. This classification simply puts these polluters under a greater microscope by the EPA. It doesn't change authorities. It doesn't engender some new regulatory scheme. It simply ensures that the EPA is keeping a close eye on them and ensuring that State programs are being followed. Again, I believe it's a piece of this that's outside of this larger State versus Federal debate. It's one that is consistent with supporting States' regulation of the most egregious infractors. States simply don't have the resources to keep our waters safe on their own. According to a 2009 New York Times investigation, State officials attribute rising pollution rates to increased workloads and dwindling resources. In 46 States, local regulators already have primary responsibility for crucial aspects of the Clean Water Act. The job needed to protect our health is simply too big for State regulators alone. One notable example of significant noncompliance is from the Bush administration between 2001 and 2006. The Bush administration found that Massey Energy, the same company responsible for the Big Branch Mine Disaster, had accrued over 2,000 significant violations, and the State did not have the resources to hold them accountable. Under significant noncompliance, the Bush administration was able to more closely watch Massey and ensure they followed State rules. Again, in its current form, this bill offers these most extreme polluters a get out of jail free card, unraveling the EPA's long history of backing up State authority and successfully and reasonably keeping these major polluters in check. My amendment very simply states that the EPA can keep a closer eye--that's all, a closer eye--on the most extreme violators of the law, polluters who are habitually out of compliance or significant noncompliance. Without my amendment, this bill would mean that our Nation's worst offenders would be free from EPA scrutiny, with sole authority being new, less organized, and naive State programs ripe for loopholes and some of which simply don't have the scale to adequately regulate what's at stake. Mr. Chair, if a student is disruptive in class, it's only common sense they go to the principal's office. That doesn't mean the teacher doesn't have autonomy in the class or the troubled student doesn't respect the teacher. They need to know there are greater consequences for bad behavior. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this bill, again, while we appreciate the open amendment process, will need an open amendment process to correct because it's so highly flawed in its current form. It serves as the majority's vehicle for a whole series of anti- environment, anti-public interest riders. These riders undercut the Clean Water Act, putting at risk public health and increasing economic burdens on local communities. The bill prevents the Army Corps of Engineers from applying anti- pollution protections to many rivers, streams and wetlands that supply drinking water and prevent flooding. Over 100 million Americans get their drinking water from public supplies provided in whole or in part from waters that are at risk of losing Clean Water Act safeguards under this bill as written. Furthermore, the committee report language that accompanies the bill contains even more explicit policy directives, including the mandate that what was to be an independent advisory board on the safety of shale gas drilling be dominated by industry representatives, which would be a prime example of the fox guarding the chicken coop. Unconventional shale gas has been expanding into new areas at a breakneck pace and has been accompanied by growing health and pollution problems experienced by residents and communities when the drilling is taking place in close proximity to where families are living. Its growth is outpacing current safeguards and exemptions already give the industry too much isolation from public safety assurances. I have grave concerns that the committee felt the need to interfere in a balanced and truly independent technology advisory panel with the aim of silencing public voices in favor of representing the industry above all other legitimate stakeholders. In fact, the advisory panel is already heavily tipped in industry's favor, and the language shows us exactly whose side this legislation is on--entrenched industries and polluters, not the public interest. The annual Energy and Water appropriations bill is important funding legislation. Historically, it has been broadly bipartisan, and it shouldn't be a playground for special interest handouts. Yet under this majority, that's what this bill has become that we are considering today. The bill in its current form undermines our energy future, undermines our national security and subsidizes an energy industry that has given us record gas prices, fracking health hazards and dirtier air. It attempts to drive a supertanker-sized loophole through the laws that keep our clean water safe. This bill should be focused on investing in innovation to strengthen our country and our national security and our energy future, not focused on wasteful spending to special interests supporting entrenched industries and harmful cuts to their clean competitors. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. I urge my colleagues to come forth and try to improve this bill under the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, a former colleague of mine on the Rules Committee, Ms. Matsui.

Mr. POLIS. I have no additional speakers and would inquire of the gentleman from Florida if he has any remaining speakers.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank my colleague from Florida for the time, as well as to thank the majority members of the Rules Committee for a fair rule that will enable a wide variety of floor amendments to be brought forward. I do rise in opposition to the underlying bill unless there are major changes made, which I hope a majority of the House successfully achieves in doing under this fair open rule. The current political debate in Washington is dominated by the question of Federal spending. And I think it's a question that we need to revisit under each appropriations bill. We need to cut wasteful spending. We should eliminate programs that don't work, eliminate corporate giveaways, look at the cost of tax subsidies that cost billions of dollars to Americans but fail to create jobs, and really serve to enrich special interests. We also need to make sure that we don't lose sight, in our drive to reduce the deficit, that we impact investments that are creative and help our economy and reduce deficits over time. Just as a successful business making cuts in a recession would make the cuts intelligently and wouldn't cut essential investments on capital resources, Congress shouldn't slash domestic investments that create jobs while also at the same time continuing to give handouts to multibillion dollar corporations. Given the approach to budgeting this year in this body, it seems like the majority isn't basing their decisions on cold arithmetic that's needed to balance a budget. Rather, there seems to be a different equation in play, an approach driven by ideology and special interest lobbying, not by a real concern for deficit reduction. With this appropriations bill, I think what we are seeing is more of the same. How else can we explain a budget that ends Medicare while preserving tax subsidies for Big Oil, tax subsidies for corporate jets, and continues wasteful defense programs, in fact actually increases the defense budget when we know that we have more defense than we can afford in this country? Why is wasteful spending prioritized over health care for our seniors, the education of our children, and investments under this bill that keep our air and water supply clean and healthy, reducing health care costs in the long run? Now, again, when we talk about these appropriations bills it's not a debate over whether we should cut the deficit. I think Republicans and Democrats agree that we need to cut the deficit. It's a debate about how we restore fiscal discipline that has been abandoned over the last decade. Let's have that debate here in the U.S. House. And I am glad that this rule allows us do it under this bill. And I hope we are able to make some major changes to this bill. Unfortunately, the Energy and Water bill as presented before the House under this rule exemplifies a reckless and ideological approach to the budget. This bill actually increases funding levels, increases deficit funding levels for fossil fuel research and development, oil and gas research, increases Federal spending on these programs, while cutting investments in clean energy research. In the past, Republicans have claimed that they were for an ``all of the above'' approach to energy policy, looking at optimizing exploitation of fossil fuels and also investing in new energy research, but instead of ``all of the above,'' this bill represents an ``oil above all'' approach to national energy policy. It's simply not a serious response to America's need for cleaner, more affordable domestic energy. At a time when we all agree we're confronting a fiscal crisis, how can we ask American taxpayers to foot the bill for ExxonMobil's R&D? That's exactly what we do under this bill. It's one of a series of subsidies for Big Oil that the majority has chosen to protect at a time that they're also demanding Americans see funding cut for schools and for seniors. Instead of increasing wasteful spending which benefits only the fossil fuel industry, we should invest in the American clean energy innovation that will benefit our national security, our environment, and our economy. This legislation cuts total funding for the Energy Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by 42 percent compared to 2010, at the same time increasing subsidies to oil and gas. These cuts will mean less innovation, dirtier energy and fewer clean energy jobs. In my home State of Colorado alone, over 5,000 jobs have been spun off of research that was conducted at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the lab gives an estimated $714 million annual boost to our State's economy. It's that kind of research that is devastated under this bill. Through this open amendment process, I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support efforts to restore that funding. These labs, like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the basic Federal research, are incubators for the private sector. The investments don't go to bloated bureaucracies or government bureaucrats in Washington. They go to the actual hiring of experts and innovators that will spin off their ideas to entrepreneurs to bring to the marketplace, a model for private sector job growth that's critical for our Nation's economy and critical for our national security in meeting our own energy needs domestically. The Department of Energy's investments in clean energy are the first step in a job create domino effect. As of August 2010, as an example, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory had 329 contracts with Colorado companies totaling $414 million, including $75.3 million in the most recent fiscal year. NREL had cooperative research and development agreements with 23 Colorado companies, and NREL supports interactions with companies from across the Nation. That's just one example of the many research initiatives and public-private partnerships that this bill as written would call into jeopardy. And while again calling into jeopardy much of this fundamental research that has private sector applications, we're again increasing subsidies to the fossil fuel industry's research. There is a $141 million or 81 percent cut to weatherization initiatives that help insulate the homes of low-income, elderly and disabled individuals in this bill, while continuing and increasing subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. Another dangerous cut in this bill is cutting funding to the Advanced Research Projects Agency, ARPA-E, by 44 percent compared to the current year. ARPA-E has strongly had bipartisan support for years and helps fund innovation in the economy based on a proven successful model we've had in defense for many years called DARPA. It funds path-breaking ideas that are unlikely to get funding anywhere else at an early stage. This creative model is crafted after DARPA, which has led to things ranging from cell phones to the creation of the Internet itself, and it has tremendous implications for America to meet its renewable energy needs. The bill before us is not smart, and it's not sensible. It's simply not a fiscally responsible bill that meets our Nation's future energy needs and cuts our deficit. I urge my colleagues to improve this bill through amendments during this open amendment process and, if it's in anything close to its current form, to oppose the final bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H. Res. 268. America has not had a more pro-Israel President than President Obama. The President has unwaveringly supported Israel's right to self- defense, fought to ensure Israel's military edge, protected her citizens with the Iron Dome anti-rocket system, and worked to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. The President also understands, as we all do, that essential to Israel's security, America's security, and Palestinian security is a negotiated resolution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict creating a lasting peace. The President's call for a negotiated resolution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict is a pro-Israel position that's absolutely essential to ensuring our ally's future as the democratic homeland of the Jewish people. We should also take an opportunity to be honest about what the President did and didn't propose. The President did not say that Israel should be forced to return to her 1967 borders. The President did say that the borders of Israel and a Palestinian state should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, a concept which has been considered a given in all the serious discussions of a two-state solution in the last decade. While fostering divisions serves the political interests of some, it's not in the long-term interest of Israel, Palestine, or the United States.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. So, reclaiming my time, I think that the straight answer is no. In fact, our ranking member and others have been unable to get that from the Navy Liaison's Office. Again, I think it's an offense to the military to second-guess their training for chaplains. No doubt those documents could eventually come our way--and should, for oversight activities--but for us to somehow defund the training of chaplains to implement Don't Ask, Don't Tell makes no sense. Again, chaplains will be worried. For instance, Catholic chaplains will be worried to advise their followers that homosexuality is a sin if that is not included in the training. Those for whom homosexuality is not a sin will also likewise be worried about advising the troops. There will be a void, a huge void--to not train the spiritual advisors to members of our military about the implementation of Don't Ask, Don't Tell? I mean, why not try to not train any of the troops? I mean, again, whether you supported it or not, I think most of us believe that it was better that there was a training process than, let's say, a court has ordered--which has now happened absent a training process and instantaneous change. With regard to the chaplaincy, to second-guess an internal military training document--again, which they have indicated that they will revise accordingly--is to show a huge lack of judgment of the men and women who run the military, an enormous lack of confidence in the institution of the chaplaincy, an offense to the chaplaincy of the military to somehow deign that Congress is expressing that they should not be trained regarding a major military policy, that they should somehow take the risk on their own, that they should worry about advising members of their faith with regard to, within their faith tradition, whether homosexuality is a sin or not, regarding members of their faith as to whether they can be married or not. This is a diverse country religiously, and likewise the institution of our military reflects that diversity. And to somehow, again, second- guess a military training document that hasn't even been read by the prime sponsor of this amendment shows a tremendous lack of faith and is a very dangerous precedence for Congress in terms of interfering with the training procedures of the military. We could, of course, as a body or as individual Members, go through every single training manual and find things we like, find things we don't like. But again, to micromanage the military to that extent, particularly in light of a policy change which has ramifications for the chaplaincy. The chaplaincy is, by and large, where the rubber meets the road with regard to how individual members are being advised about their sexual orientation, about what behaviors are moral and what behaviors are immoral. And to somehow say that Congress will tell the chaplaincy not to train anybody on implementing this policy change leaves our soldiers in a spiritual lurch. It leaves our Christian soldiers in a spiritual lurch. It leaves our Jewish soldiers in a spiritual lurch, our Muslim soldiers in a spiritual lurch, all of those who take advantage of the good offices of the chaplaincy in the military, just as, of course, we have a chaplain in this fine institution, the United States Congress. So, again, this is a change that perhaps many members of the chaplaincy were not in favor of--some were; it depends on their faith position, their own political opinions--but they need to be trained in accordance with military protocols, and this amendment would gut that. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, this amendment strikes a very dangerous precedent for Congress to somehow micromanage the training processes of military chaplains. We have military chaplains from diverse faith backgrounds. We have many faiths--in fact, the majority of faiths that, for instance, don't sanctify gay marriage. We have other faiths. The one that I happen to belong to--I am a member of a reformed Jewish faith--and there are many other Christian faiths, including the Episcopalian faith, which do sanction same-sex unions. Likewise, it's an important part of chaplain training that they're allowed to counsel against, for instance, homosexual acts or extramarital heterosexual acts. That's a part of chaplaincy training as well. For Congress to interfere with the military processes of chaplaincy training is absurd and unprecedented. With regard to this particular training program, I would like to ask my friend from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), if I could just yield a moment to him, if he has read this particular training manual that he is seeking to defund here. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS. Has the gentleman from Kansas read the training manual that he is seeking to defund in this case?

Mr. POLIS. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POLIS. Given the ongoing budget negotiations, we need to explore all options for reducing wasteful spending, and I think we have an easy one in front of us in this amendment. Before we ask the American people to accept painful cuts or accept tax increases, we have an opportunity here to get defense spending under control in a way that does not jeopardize or harm our national security. If we're serious about deficit reduction, we need to do something about the defense budget, and we can do it in a responsible way that doesn't hurt our national security. My amendment would do that. By reducing some of the 80,000 troops in Europe where they're no longer needed, we can save hundreds of millions of dollars. So what my amendment would do very simply is reduce the total number of troops stationed in Europe from 80,000 to 30,000, which is more than enough to continue to support our ongoing operations in Libya and Iraq and our responsibilities to NATO for those Members who support them. For those who don't, this is not a proxy for those battles. We don't want to cut the troop levels so low we can't support those operations. It will allow the DOD to save money by closing those bases that are no longer needed. By pulling 50,000 troops out of Western Europe and closing bases, we can save money, reduce our redundant military force, and CBO has scored the savings of this amendment as over $800 million. On top of the savings produced by reducing our troop level, my amendment would allow us to station troops in the U.S., instead of Europe, where it's 10 to 20 percent less expensive. It would allow the Pentagon to close bases across Europe that, frankly, are relics of World War II and the Cold War. The U.S. taxpayer didn't sign up to indefinitely defend our wealthy Western European allies from a nonexistent threat. These bases cost U.S. taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars. On top of that, they're often unpopular with the local people of the countries they are located in. Our European allies are some of the richest countries in the world, so why are we subsidizing their defense spending? Our European allies have enjoyed a free ride on the American dime for too long. Today, our European allies spend an average of about 2 percent of GDP on defense, while America spends 4 to 5 percent. That means the average American spends $2,500 on defense; the average European, $500 on defense. Now, if Europe feels they are under a military threat, first of all, I would like to hear whom it's from. It's not clear who's about to attack France or Germany. But if Europe does feel they're under a threat, they can afford to spend more on defense, and we can be confident that we can spend less on their defense. We cannot afford to subsidize the defense of France and Germany from an unknown and unidentified threat. This amendment does not signal a weakening in our commitment to NATO. With modern technology, we can move troops and weapons quickly across the globe into theaters of operation. We retain sufficient presence in Europe with 30,000 troops for our joint training responsibilities under NATO. There is simply no need to have nearly 100,000 troops. It's time to rethink our defense spending. We're not under threat by the Nazis. We're not under threat by the Soviets. Terrorism is a real threat. It's an amorphous threat that's not bound by nations or states, and, in fact, it does not have its main nexus in Western Europe. Maintaining bases in Europe is simply not a sane or rational response to this threat, nor is it fiscally responsible. Even Donald Rumsfeld thinks it's time for a change of policy. In his recent book, he wrote: ``Of the quarter million troops deployed abroad in 2001, more than 100,000 were in Europe, the vast majority stationed in Germany to fend off an invitation by a Soviet Union that no longer existed.'' These cuts proposed in my amendment are part of the recommendations of the Sustainable Defense Task Force, a bipartisan project. The Sustainable Defense Task Force brought together defense experts from across the ideological spectrum and proposed commonsense recommendations for saving taxpayers' money without jeopardizing our national defense, and that's exactly what this is, common sense. At a time when we must seriously consider cuts to wasteful government spending, we should not continue to subsidize the defense of wealthy European nations against a nonexistent Nazi threat, a nonexistent Soviet threat. Let's get serious here. We can start by reducing our military presence in Europe, which will save the American people hundreds of millions of dollars while protecting our national security interests. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, H.R. 1249 correctly changes the policy involving tax strategy patents. Under current law, although it was current law that was never specifically contemplated by lawmakers, tax strategy methods are patentable. Now these tax strategy patents have complicated the tax filing process and have allowed commonsense filing techniques to be patentable, so H.R. 1249 removes this complication by mandating that tax strategies are deemed insufficient to differentiate a claimed invention from the prior art. I strongly support this provision. However, there are a number of folks who are currently involved with the process of applying for tax strategy patents, and in effect, we risk changing the rules of the game retroactively for them, a form of takings. There are currently 160 tax strategy patent applications in the process. Many of the inventors have decided to devote thousands of hours of time to disclose their innovations. Again, had this window of patentability never been opened--and it never should have been--this would not have been an issue because these inventors would have retained their innovations as trade secrets. However, you can't blame them for saying, okay, there's a window on patentability; I will disclose so that I can have the 17-year exclusive. And now the risk is that that calculation that they made to disclose is being changed retroactively insofar as they will no longer have the ability to protect their innovation as a trade secret. In their patent applications, these applicants have described how to make and use their invention. Many have even provided computer programs, including code, to carry them out. The patent applications have been published, and some of them are pending for many years. Changing the law midstream fundamentally hurts these applicants who did all that was proper under the law at the time they filed their patent application. The underlying bill as drafted would make those patent applications useless; and because the patent applications have been published, the patent applicant will get nothing for disclosing their secrets, except the expense of pursuing a patent and of course the ability of others to replicate their innovation. Competitors will be free to use their disclosures in the published patent application process. Changing the law midstream simply sends the wrong message to inventors that one cannot trust the law that is in place when they file a patent. Congress would be sending a message, unless my amendment is incorporated into the underlying bill, that all inventors on any subject matter may have their disclosures taken away from them after they have made the decision to apply for a patent by retroactively negating the possibility of them receiving a patent. Tax strategy patents should never have been allowed under the law. I think there's broad agreement among all of us in this Chamber on that topic. It's unfortunate that there was a window. However, rational inventors, making a conscious choice, said, hey, in favor of disclosing, I will then accept a 17-year monopoly, and are now being penalized for making what was a very reasonable decision. Restore equity to the America Invents Act by supporting my amendment. I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will support this, which effectively addresses only those 160 applications that are in effect now. It certainly continues and am in support of the ban on future patents for tax strategies, but there seem to be very few alternatives or remedies to the takings that would otherwise occur under this bill unless my amendment is incorporated. I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it's hard to believe that the war on drugs has lasted 40 years. The stories of Americans who have suffered because of the war on drugs continue to flood my in-box. Even veterans who served our country are victims of our senseless drug war. For instance, Alex from Franklin, Ohio, wrote in to me. Alex is a U.S. Army veteran with chronic pain and muscle spasms due to his service to our country. After returning from his deployment, he was put on opiate muscle relaxers from the VA clinic, which didn't work well for him. Following a friend's recommendation, he tried medical marijuana, and it worked for him. However, he was forced to quit in order to accept a new job, and his pain returned. He returned to the VA over and over again, searching for something to relieve the pain. Their only answer was to prescribe stronger and stronger opiates, far stronger narcotics than marijuana. When that didn't work, he was sent to physical therapists, who didn't have an answer either; but because he lives in a State that doesn't offer access to medical marijuana, he is forced to have a very difficult decision between living with his pain or violating the law. Another person who wrote in is Bob, from Fulton, Georgia, who wrote me to share the story of his wife, who has suffered from systemic lupus for over 30 years. Lupus has slowly deteriorated her body, destroying her hip joint and shoulders. Multiple doctors have said there is nothing they can do to relieve her pain. During those 3 decades, they have tried all sorts of powerful approved and legal narcotics--to no avail. The only thing that has relieved her pain without side effect and makes her life better is medical marijuana. Again, unfortunately, for Bob and his wife, their State does not have access to medical marijuana like my home State of Colorado does and 14 other States. Bob ends the story about his wife by saying, ``She is 65 years old and can only look forward to pain and agony.'' I'm sure there are many folks in our country in the same situation. Releasing them from the threat of arrest and incarceration simply for trying to live a pain- free life would be a godsend for these patients and their caregivers. Is this the reason that we're waging a war on drugs--to ensure that sick people continue to suffer from pain unnecessarily or are driven to buy stronger, more powerful and more addictive narcotics? Now, there are a lot of views on what a more sensible marijuana policy might look like. My own approach is support for legalization and creating a regulatory system similar to what we have for alcohol and tobacco. We can regulate access, make sure people are not driving under the influence, prevent minors from accessing drugs, tax drugs, and engage in public outreach and education campaigns about the dangers of marijuana. Taxing and regulating marijuana would save taxpayers billions of dollars and would generate revenue. In fact, each year, the Federal Government spends $8 billion arresting and locking up nonviolent marijuana users--again, not marijuana dealers, not marijuana growers. There is $8 billion spent locking up nonviolent marijuana users. For instance, Alex, the veteran, or Bob's wife in Georgia could very well fall victim to that if they're in the wrong place at the wrong time. Taxing and regulating marijuana would also make our communities safer. Removing marijuana from the criminal market would free up police time so officers can focus on violent crimes, property crimes, people driving under the influence of alcohol or marijuana or any other substance. Tax dollars could be used to incarcerate real criminals who threaten public safety rather than veterans like Alex who are simply using marijuana as a less powerful narcotic alternative to deal with their pain than the opiates that are fully legal under the law and prescribed at the VA. Instead of reaping these benefits, our country continues to suffer under the failed war on drugs. We need to put an end to this war on drugs, which has caused so much needless suffering. The government should treat its citizens like responsible adults instead of interfering in their lives, and it should offer to help those suffering addiction instead of incarcerating them. The proper front to win the war against narcotics abuse in this country is a health war, not a war of violence. We are losing this war. Addicts continue to suffer needlessly every day. Those who would benefit from medical marijuana are continually forced to violate the law or to live their lives in pain. We can do better as a Nation. Many States are leading the way, and we at the Federal level need to pursue the direction that has been followed by an increasing number of States, and we need to regulate the use of marijuana in a way that is compassionate, that discourages usage among minors, and we need to make sure that we have a health aspect in dealing with addiction where it exists.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. I think some of the frustration here, Mr. Speaker, is that the work product of the committee is being disregarded in favor of a rule that provides for a manager's amendment that fundamentally alters the character of the bill in a way that many Members of both parties have quite a few problems with. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee, Ms. Jackson Lee

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. I want to point out that the vote my friend from California referenced on the committee by a 10-1 margin is a completely different bill and finance mechanism than is contemplated under the manager's amendment to this bill. This manager's amendment has not been seen or voted on by any of the committees of jurisdiction and is a major break from precedents on this issue. I would now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. POLIS. I would express my hope to the gentleman from Florida that this discussion might continue on his time. We are down to our last minute and a half on this side.