Dina Titus

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment, of which I am a proud cosponsor. As a Member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, I regularly speak with both VA medical professionals and patients about advances in care for our nation's heroes. The limited research that has been allowed to be conducted has shown very promising results on the use of medical marijuana for the treatment of conditions such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Nearly 1 of 5 veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is diagnosed with PTSD and we have seen a skyrocketing rate of overuse and addiction of powerful painkillers being used to treat such illnesses. Giving medical professionals additional tools to treat these serious ailments is not just commonsense, it is the right thing to do. Often times we hear elected officials come to the well of the House and speak about their commitment to our servicemembers and veterans. Today we have an opportunity to do more than offer platitudes, we can offer relief: relief from the pain and suffering associated with PTSD; relief from a medical system with little to offer as alternative treatments to powerful and addictive painkillers; relief from the fear of being penalized for using medical marijuana prescribed by a private doctor; and relief to VA medical professionals in the 36 states, including Nevada and Washington D.C. where medical marijuana is legal, allowing them to utilize their medical judgement to determine the best treatment options for their patients. Forcing the 225,000 veterans who call Nevada home and millions across the country to go outside the VA health system to seek treatment, without the supervision and guidance of the medical professionals who understand the specific needs of our veteran community, is irresponsible. I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan amendment and stand up for our brave men and women who bear the scars of war and who so desperately need our support.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Madam Chairman, I come to the floor today on behalf of the people of Nevada to ask my colleagues to reject the failed policies of the past and concentrate our efforts on real solutions to the Nation's energy challenges. The bill before us appropriates $150 million for the failed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste project. Taxpayer-funded junkets and photo ops cannot change the fact that this project has never been based on sound science but, instead, stems from targeted politics. After decades squandered and $15 billion wasted, we are no closer to a solution than when President Reagan signed the ``Screw Nevada'' bill in 1988. Yet, today, the House is set to consider legislation that will waste millions more on this failed project. Now, I have heard my colleagues say this is the law of the land. Well, the ACA is the law of the land, and that hasn't stopped them from trying to overturn it 57 times. Furthermore, it appears that although this is the so-called law of the land, the interpretation of that law is pretty flexible. I want to bring my colleagues' attention to a particular line in this bill that appropriates $5 million for units of local government to support Yucca Mountain. This simply creates a slush fund to pay off local governments in return for their support of this failed project. I don't anticipate that many of my colleagues are as familiar with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as we are in Nevada, but the law clearly states that any benefits that the Federal Government may appropriate can only be provided through mutual agreement between the Federal Government and the State. Last time I checked, Republican Governor Brian Sandoval, not the House Appropriations Committee, is the chief executive of the State of Nevada, and he strongly opposes Yucca Mountain. Madam Chairman, I will submit for the Record an op-ed written by Governor Sandoval and former Governor Richard Bryan, titled ``Yucca Mountain: Unsafe site won't ever be safe for nuclear waste.'' [Special to the Review-Journal, Apr. 12, 2015] Yucca Mountain: Unsafe Site Won't Ever Be Safe for Nuclear Waste (By Brian Sandoval and Richard Bryan) Nevada Rep. Cresent Hardy, who joined a pro-Yucca Mountain congressional site visit this past week, recently asked the question, ``Is there a scenario in which Nevadans would actually welcome nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain?'' (``Time for Nevada to talk Yucca Mountain,'' March 22 Review- Journal). The answer to that question is an emphatic ``no'' for one simple yet unavoidable reason: Because Yucca Mountain is an unsafe place for storing or disposing deadly nuclear waste and was selected for purely political reasons having nothing to do with science or suitability. There is nothing for state officials to negotiate. In fact, our leaders would be remiss in their duty to protect the public and the environment to entertain the notion that any amount of dollars could possibly compensate for likely grievous and lethal harm from siting a facility in such an unsafe location as Yucca Mountain. From day one, science with respect to Yucca Mountain has taken a back seat to Washington, D.C., power politics. In 1987, Congress ignored science completely and named Yucca Mountain as the only site to be studied as a potential repository in spite of its known serious flaws. Yucca was picked not because it was the best site or even a safe one. It was chosen solely because Nevada was the most politically vulnerable state at the time. Sites in Texas, Louisiana, Washington, and other states were dismissed out of hand because their states were protected by powerful Washington, D.C., politicians. As site characterization at Yucca progressed, every time the science showed the site to be seriously flawed, the Energy Department merely invented another engineering fix-- like the metal waste packages that will have to remain intact for 10,000 years or more, even though they've never been built or tested; more than 11,000 titanium drip shields that must be placed over the ``corrosion-resistant'' waste packages (DOE does not plan to install them for 100 years or more) in order to meet the radiation exposure criteria; and manipulating the site's boundaries so the aquifer below Yucca can be used to ``dilute'' the radiation that will inevitably escape from the repository. And when even these ``fixes'' were not enough, the Energy Department simply abandoned its own siting criteria containing specific qualifying and disqualifying conditions (that Yucca couldn't meet) and created a black box-like assessment tool (called Total System Performance Assessment, or TSPA) that allows the site's many flaws to be camouflaged and rendered insignificant. The way to fix the nuclear waste disposal problem is not to keep beating the dead horse that is Yucca Mountain, as Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., appeared to be doing with the promotional tour of the shut-down Yucca Mountain site last week. A more constructive and fruitful approach would be to move forward with new initiatives that rely on real science to identify safe and suitable storage and disposal sites and require states and local governments to give their consent to any future nuclear waste siting efforts. Brian Sandoval, a Republican, is governor of Nevada. Richard Bryan, a Democrat, is a former Nevada governor and U.S. senator, and chairman of the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects.

Ms. TITUS. Also, the committee's report language sites that this hush money is provided for local governments that give ``formal consent.'' This raises yet another question about the intent of this section. The law does not outline any process for giving formal consent, so how would the newly bribed localities be able to provide that consent? If you are looking for consent, I urge you to support H.R. 1364, the Nuclear Waste Informed Consent Act, which I introduced, along with my colleague Congressman Heck and Senators Reid and Heller. This bipartisan legislation sets out a formal consent process so that Nevada or Texas or New Mexico or any other State and affected local community or tribe that chooses to host a nuclear waste depository will have a process by which it can give consent for siting by the Federal Government. No community should have to face what we in Nevada have faced for the last few decades of having this pushed down our throat. Madam Chairman, I will also submit for the Record two articles outlining nuclear waste storage proposals that are supported in the State of Texas and the State of New Mexico. [West Texas Radio, Feb. 13, 2015] Company Wants to Expand Nuclear Waste Site in Texas (By Travis Bubenik) A Dallas-based company is looking to expand its nuclear waste site in rural West Texas into a longer-term storage site for high-level radioactive waste. Waste Control Specialists (WCS) is asking the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to approve a new license to expand its above-ground storage facility in Andrews County to allow more radioactive types of waste. The company already stores ``low level'' waste-- contaminated rags, tools and other equipment that have come mostly from the national nuclear research lab in Los Alamos, New Mexico. The site also served as a home for waste that was supposed to wind up at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico, until that site was shuttered after a leak contaminated workers there about a year ago. WCS now wants to store used fuel rods from nuclear power plants across the country--a more radioactive form of waste. In theory, the waste would stay in West Texas temporarily-- until the federal government comes up with a long-term disposal plan--but it could be decades before that happens. ``Even though it is called an interim storage facility, that storage period is a long time,'' says WCS President Rod Baltzer. ``We think that's somewhere between 60 to 100 years.'' Baltzer was in Washington, D.C. Monday talking to reporters about the company's push to expand the facility. ``This wasn't initially something we intended to do when we got out there, but we've been out there a long time, and times have changed,'' he says. Those changes have riled some environmentalists in Texas. The Sierra Club has criticized the company for its track record of slowly expanding its intentions for the West Texas site. The environmental group says the company's misled lawmakers and the public as it's sought to store more radioactive types of waste through the years. Cyrus Reed, Conservation Director for the Sierra Club's Lone Star Chapter, says he's watched with concern while the company's plan for the site grew from storing low level waste to larger quantities of the same waste. ``Now it turns out we are to become the nation's dumping ground for all manner of dangerous highly toxic radioactive waste,'' he says. WCS maintains it can store the waste safely, and that the community in Andrews County has welcomed the idea. Baltzer says the company is fulfilling the Obama Administration's call in 2013 for a ``consent-based'' approach to transporting, storing and disposing of the nation's nuclear waste. That strategy instructs the government to seek out communities willing to house nuclear waste ``in expectation of the economy activity that would result from the siting, construction and operation of such a facility in their communities.'' For now, Andrews County appears to be that kind of place. County Commissioners recently passed a resolution enthusiastically backing the plan. If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gives WCS the green light, the company says construction on the expanded facility could be complete by the end of 2020.

Ms. TITUS. So I would say, Madam Chairman, instead of wasting tens of millions of dollars more on an unworkable solution, let's, instead, meet our fiduciary obligations to future generations. At the same time, let us commit to moving forward on a new policy to address the Nation's nuclear waste, one that relies on a consent-based system that doesn't force waste on communities like mine, which is the recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Commission. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and send a message that Congress will not continue to move backwards but will take serious action to address our Nation's nuclear waste policy. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. TITUS. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague, but he does not address the points I make about how this amendment looks at provisions of the bill that are contrary to the new proposal. I urge a ``no'' vote. There is no point in throwing good money after bad. American taxpayers deserve a wiser expenditure of their dollars. Nevadans deserve to be heard on this issue, and those areas that want to have a site in their State or their community deserve a chance to be considered. I thank you, and I urge, strongly, a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. TITUS. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. I rise to offer an amendment. It is at the desk.

Ms. TITUS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to say, very simply, that we shortchange our veterans if we don't give them the opportunity to have every possible medical treatment that is out there. We know that certain States have legalized medical marijuana. In those States, our veterans deserve to have that as on option. To shortchange them would just be unconscionable, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Ms. TITUS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, which is designed to focus the VA's attention on a critical issue, the treatment of our female veterans. The population of women veterans is rapidly growing. Today women constitute approximately 20 percent of new recruits, 14.5 percent of the Active Duty component, and 18 percent of the Reserve component. Almost 280,000 women have served post-9/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq. While the number of male veterans is expected to decline by 2020, the number of women veterans is expected to grow dramatically to 11 percent of the veteran population. From health care to child care, the needs of women veterans are different from those of their male counterparts. Unfortunately, the VA has faced challenges in meeting these needs. There are far too few OB/ GYNs and a dearth of women's healthcare clinics. Where clinics do exist, many lack sufficient privacy protections for the patient. The VA has also struggled to address shortages in mental health, child care, and housing services for female veterans. Too many women who served either do not identify themselves as veterans or they lack sufficient information about the benefits and services that the VA provides. Fortunately, the VA has started to put an increased focus on this population. The VA Center for Women Veterans is charged with monitoring and coordinating VA's administration of health care, benefits services, and programs for women veterans, as well as with raising awareness within the Department for their special needs. In 2012 the Women Veterans Task Force published a report outlining strategies to meet the needs of our female veterans. The report highlighted barriers to providing services to women veterans, including a lack of data collection and analysis. Without knowing how to best serve and meet expectations of female veterans, the VA will never be able to give these heroes the care and support that they earned and deserve. My amendment is designed simply to encourage the VA to fill the two unfunded data collection and analysis positions in the Center for Women Veterans to ensure that the VA is able to identify and fulfill the needs of our Nation's female heroes. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for working with me on this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to close by asking my other colleagues to support this amendment so we can send a strong message to our female veterans that the U.S. Congress is committed to ensuring that the VA is meeting their unique needs. It is critical that the VA is able to accurately look forward to the future and shape their programs so it is welcoming and supporting of all our veterans. I thank you for your support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Fisher House Foundation on their 25th anniversary and to thank them for their services to our military and veteran families. The Fisher House Foundation is the result of the vision and efforts by Zachary and Elizabeth Fisher. They wanted to provide a home away from home for the families of servicemen and -women while their loved ones received treatment, and their vision has come to fruition. Since the first Fisher House opened in 1990, over 250,000 families have saved $282 million in lodging and transportation costs. The 64 locations throughout the United States and Germany have provided families 5.8 million days of lodging. Just a few weeks ago, I was fortunate and proud to participate in the groundbreaking of Nevada's first Fisher House, located across the street from our new VA hospital. What a wonderful day it was. Congratulations, Fisher House Foundation, and thank you and your volunteers for all you do to make a difficult time just a little easier for our Nation's heroes.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the LGBT veterans, who face discrimination by the very government they fought to defend, and I urge my colleagues to join me in ending this injustice. Two years ago, DOMA was struck down, and most Federal benefits were effectively extended to legally married same-sex couples; yet an outdated law continues to bar access to VA benefits for LGBT veteran families in States that do not recognize marriage equality. Our men and women in uniform do not serve in defense of a particular State, but of the United States. All veterans should have access to all Federal benefits, regardless of where they live, just as they do when they are in the military. When President Lincoln laid out his vision for caring for veterans, he said we should support those ``who shall have borne the battle.'' He didn't say anything about discriminating against some because of who they love. Please join me in ending this injustice, and support the bipartisan Veteran Spouses Equal Treatment Act, which I will introduce tomorrow.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would be quoting Ronald Reagan but, ``There you go again,'' another Republican budget that kicks the poor, the hungry, and the disabled to the curb, that strangles the middle class and deserts hardworking families. ``There you go again,'' another Republican budget that stymies research and development, abandons essential infrastructure, and stifles access to education. ``There you go again,'' another Republican budget that robs senior citizens, degrades the environment, and devastates our cultural institutions. ``There you go again,'' another so-called Republican path to prosperity that is really a road map for distress and decline for all but big corporations and the megawealthy. So I urge folks, call those Republican Representatives and tell them that the American people don't want to and don't deserve to go that way again.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate the hard work that went into this important legislation to ensure passenger rail service remains a viable option for travelers across the country. In particular, as a pet lover, I am very happy to see the language based on Chairman Denham's Pets on Trains legislation, which I am cosponsor of. But I do have concerns that the bill we are going to pass today doesn't set us on a course for building out services to parts of the country that do not now have access to passenger rail. I represent Las Vegas, which welcomes more than 42 million people from around the world to our world-class resorts, casinos, restaurants, shopping, shows, et cetera. More and more of these visitors are coming from Asia and Europe, where rail services are accessible and efficient. Unfortunately, the last Amtrak train to service Las Vegas departed from the station on Glitter Gulch behind the Union Plaza in May of 1977. Over the past 18 years, Las Vegas has continued its transformation into the premier international tourist destination. Since the trains stopped running, nearly a million more residents now call southern Nevada home and 10 million more people come to Las Vegas for work and play every year. This growth has put an enormous strain on our highways and airports. While I will be supporting this legislation, I do hope, as the body advances further policies regarding passenger rail, we recognize the need to build out rail services to communities like Las Vegas, not just maintain the current system.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, the day after the election, Speaker Boehner and Senator McConnell outlined an agenda for the so-called New American Congress, pledging to focus on the people's priorities. Well, they have obviously failed to deliver on this promise, instead allowing anti- immigrant, rightwing radicals to trump the safety of American families. Mr. Speaker, recent events around the world provide a stark reminder of the threats we face. Yet amid the rising risks of terrorist attack, Republicans are holding critical Homeland Security funding hostage in a misguided attempt to undermine and roll back key protections for immigrant families. To quote The Washington Post: The fervor of Republic partisanship is immune to logic beyond an insistence on victory at any cost. In this case, the cost is some 1,500 DHS personnel in Nevada who would be furloughed or forced to work without pay and nearly $10 million in grant funding that Nevada counts on to protect the safety of our citizens and the over 40 million visitors who come to Las Vegas every year. Only 2 days remain until DHS shuts down. I call on Republicans: Stop holding it hostage and let's get to work.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, just this morning, Nevada Attorney General Laxalt testified before the House Judiciary Committee, claiming that the implementation of DAPA and extension of DACA would cause undue economic hardship for our State. Well, I would like to see his evidence, because data show that granting administrative relief to qualified undocumented immigrants would actually contribute to economic growth. Thanks to these executive actions, the legal workforce will expand, and average wages for all workers will increase by $170 a year. The Federal deficit will be reduced by $25 billion, and GDP will grow from $90 billion to $210 billion over the next decade. Furthermore, it is estimated that expanding DACA and DAPA will increase Nevada's GDP from $700 million to $1.7 billion over the next 10 years and lead to $21 million in additional tax revenue for the State over the next 5 years. So, in short, General, not implementing the President's actions is not only morally indefensible, but also economically foolish. And, I might add, holding up DHS funding for this purpose is a shameful political act that puts Americans at risk.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, last week I visited with two constituents, Aida and Norma, who have lived and worked in this country for years, rearing their families here and paying taxes. I also saw my former student Blanca after she met with President Obama to talk about the positive impact the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has had on her life. Like Aida and Norma, Blanca is a long time resident of Southern Nevada and an active member of our community; she holds a degree from UNLV and is planning to attend law school. Thanks to the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program, Aida and Norma's families no longer live in constant fear of separation. And because of DACA, Blanca can continue to pursue her American Dream without the threat of deportation. But unfortunately, Republicans are waging a war against immigrants. They are actively working to repeal DACA and DAPA and strip away these critical protections for DREAMers and their families. They refuse to consider comprehensive immigration reform. They are wasting time suing the President for taking executive action to prevent the separation of families. And they are jeopardizing national security by tying anti- immigrant riders to the DHS funding bill. By refusing to work with House Democrats to find a long-term, comprehensive fix to our broken immigration system, Republicans are turning their backs on women like Aida, Norma, and Blanca. They are keeping people in the shadows and costing our economy over $800 billion. They'd rather attack families than terrorists. I urge Republicans to immediately stop waging their morally indefensible, economically foolish, and physically dangerous war on undocumented families, listen to the American people, and immediately pass the immigration reform we need.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart to mourn the loss and honor the life of my friend, Coach Jerry Tarkanian, who passed away this morning. A leader and a role model, both on and off the court, ``the Shark'' was not only a legendary collegiate men's basketball coach, but a pillar in the Las Vegas community. As coach at UNLV, he led the Running Rebels to a 509-105 record over 19 seasons, four Final Four appearances, and an NCAA championship in 1990. In 2013, he was inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, and a statue of him was placed outside UNLV's Thomas & Mack Center, which houses the basketball court bearing his name. Coach Tarkanian was known for giving young players a second chance. He supported numerous charities and programs that helped build character, life skills, and talent that fostered success in later life. My thoughts go out to his wife and his family, and I am sure the coach is looking down and chewing on that famous towel in Heaven.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Madam Speaker, last week, House Republicans voted to eliminate DAPA, a program that would protect nearly 40 percent of undocumented immigrants, promote family unity, and boost our economy. They also voted to end DACA, which has helped some 630,000 DREAMers, including 10,000 in Nevada, come out of the shadows and pursue the American Dream. This Republican attack is not only being waged at the Federal level. Yesterday, Nevada's Republican attorney general joined more than two dozen other States in a lawsuit challenging President Obama's executive action on immigration, although every President since Eisenhower has used similar executive authority to protect immigrants in our country. So what then is the real reason for this declaring war on immigrants? Could it be that they want to keep a desperate underclass to fill those low-wage, no-benefit jobs? Or do some fear that these folks might become citizens and vote them out of office? Regardless of the reason, these modern day know-nothings should be ashamed of themselves.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 36. This bill is a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling 42 years ago in Roe v. Wade. It is a dangerous attack on a woman's constitutional right to choose. The bill does not include an exception for the physical or emotional health of a woman. It fails to provide sufficient protections for victims of rape and incest, and it has only a very narrow exception when a woman's life is in danger. In short, the bill significantly reduces the safe, legal options that women have and prevents doctors from providing the most medically appropriate care for their patients. Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated a disregard for women's health care, and this bill is just one more example of their continuing attack on women's rights. It is a step backward for women's health and, quite simply, a distraction from the important work that we should be undertaking. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight a significant provision in the defense authorization bill, and this is language that is based on H.R. 2015, the Las Vegas Valley Public Lands and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument. This important legislation will enact a number of land conveyances across southern Nevada, including over 400 acres for the Nellis Air Force Base used for critical training missions. In addition, the legislation will protect nearby lands that contain fossil beds dating back thousands of years to the Ice Age. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation enjoys the support of the entire Nevada delegation as well as the Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce, county and local officials, education institutions, local tribal governments, and area environmentalists. For years we have been working with leadership in the House and Senate to advance this legislation, which will strengthen our national security mission at Nellis, promote economic development for southern Nevada, and preserve our national history for generations to come.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, as a country, we have a responsibility to help our veterans transition back from active military duty by giving them the tools they need to succeed in civilian life. Sadly, far too many of the men and women who have sacrificed so much on our behalf return home to find they must struggle to get housing, secure employment, and provide for themselves and their families. We can and must do better. That is why I am proud to partner with my Republican colleague, David McKinley, to introduce legislation that honors our commitment by providing resources to help veterans pursue higher education and gain the skills and training they need to succeed in STEM careers. The ability to analyze, communicate, and motivate--honed during their military training--makes veterans ideal candidates in the fields related to science, technology, math, and engineering. With growth in the STEM fields for jobs that are expected to outpace other professions in the next two decades, this legislation will help to meet the demands for the high-skilled workforce that we need to be competitive in the global economy. So I would urge my colleagues to join Mr. McKinley and me in upholding our promise to our Nation's heroes and support the GI Bill STEM Extension Act of 2014.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 521, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Well, thank you very much. I would like to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Norton, for arranging this important discussion about an issue that is moving quickly in State capitals across the country, here in Washington, D.C., but in Congress maybe not so much. I would like to speak about the legal regulated use of marijuana for medical and commercial sale because this is an important issue that has garnered attention nationwide as States and communities continue to enact laws to allow for legal and carefully regulated and taxed sale and use. We see this in all parts of the country, in all types of communities, and we see it not just passed by State legislatures, but mandated through public referenda. I represent the heart of the Las Vegas Valley in the State of Nevada where, for nearly 14 years, we had a voter-approved mandate allowing for medical marijuana. Then just last year, the State legislature put forth a legal framework for medical marijuana businesses to be permitted, regulated, and to go into operation around the State. This has led to enormous interest from investors and entrepreneurs, researchers, and, most importantly, patients who now can benefit, through the assistance of their physicians, from medical marijuana for the treatment for all kinds of things, a variety of things: epileptic seizures in children, PTSD treatment, pain relief from cancer, appetite enhancers for people undergoing chemotherapy, and HIV/AIDS. Nevada is now one of 23 States with legal marijuana for medical or commercial sale, and those numbers continue to grow after poll after poll shows increasing support for legalization and regulation. We saw two States just in the election last week where marijuana was approved. Now, that brings us to what is happening here in Congress. Over the course of the last 113th congressional session, we have seen considerable advancements that had not been the case up until now. A few years ago, just a short time ago, only a small group of Members of Congress would be willing to speak out about medical marijuana, much less support any kind of legislation that would update our Nation's antiquated drug laws. But today, Democrats and some Republicans have come together to advocate for this industry and work to update the Nation's laws to catch up to what is happening in the States and to reflect the realities of what is going on in Nevada, in Washington, D.C., and in places around the country. For the first time, with the help of leaders like Congressman Blumenauer, Congressman Rohrabacher, and others, the House of Representatives passed not one, but two significant amendments to protect the rights of States when it comes to legal marijuana sales and use. As more States and communities move forward with ballot initiatives like the one that passed here in D.C., 2-1, or with regulatory laws like those that were just enacted in Nevada, it is important that we, as elected representatives of our communities, become educated and advocate for the community's best interests. Because of the important potential role that medical marijuana will play in Nevada's economic future and because this conversation is so quickly becoming a national issue, I have tried to educate myself and have been traveling the country visiting dispensaries, growers, and experts in the industry to learn about the fiscal and scientific potential, as well as the obstacles that are faced by these businesses. I traveled to the Berkeley Patients Group, The Apothecarium, and Blum dispensary in the San Francisco Bay area to learn more about how the industry has evolved from leaders like Sean Loose, Ryan Hudson, and Salwa Ibrahim, all of whom are recognized experts and innovators in the field of medical marijuana. I went to Arizona to visit with Beth Stavola and Dr. Sue Sisley and discussed the advantages of medical marijuana in treating veterans with PTSD and for helping seniors. I also met with folks at Monarch Wellness Center to hear how an entrepreneur's personal history with his mother's medical condition inspired him to open Scottsdale's first medical marijuana dispensary. And I recently traveled to Colorado, where I was very impressed by CannLabs' facility that is bringing the highest standards of quality and safety to the medical cannabis industry. I would encourage my colleagues here in Congress to visit these businesses, talk to their employees, and see firsthand that today's industry is not just some little head shop on the corner with a picture of Che Guevara. It is a very professional, very scientific, very regulated industry. It is a modern, professional office with skilled and educated personnel. So we have more work to do. It has begun, but we have a lot to do as we start the 114th Congress. We should concentrate on issues that are having a significant impact and bringing uncertainty to an industry that is booming and needs certain protections. We also need to regulate it to protect children, for example, and also hold it accountable so it can make a financial contribution by being a legal, regulated operator that pays taxes. Congress should also allow medical personnel at our veterans hospitals to recommend the best available care for our Nation's veterans, and that may include medical marijuana. This could help with the effects of PTSD that are far too common in our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. We must also ensure that products are available for vital research into the medical benefits of marijuana. So far the research has mostly been on the negative side. What are the possible positive contributions that can come from studying the benefits so we can advance the science and move us beyond that notion of ``Reefer Madness''? And as you have been hearing from my colleague, it is important that, in considering all of this, Congress respect home rule and the will of the people. That is certainly true in the District of Columbia. Their laws need to be respected because they have been enacted in the best interests of that own community. Just as State laws are, we need to respect those states' rights. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on this important issue and to protect the rights and interests of those communities like Washington and States like Nevada where the people have decided that this is the way of the future. I thank you for letting me join you today, and I look forward to working with you on this issue.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 85th Anniversary of the Daughters of Penelope. This fine organization was founded on November 16, 1929, in San Francisco, with the mission of improving the well-being of Greek women and providing them with opportunities to make significant contributions to American society. Over the past 85 years, Daughters of Penelope has grown into a leading international organization of women of Hellenic descent and Philhellenes, recognized and respected worldwide for its scholarship programs and public advocacy. Today, the Daughters are instrumental in promoting the ideals of ancient Greece, with a focus on education, philanthropy, civic responsibility, and individual excellence through community service and volunteerism. Most recently, through their 250 chapters around the globe, they have supported efforts to end domestic violence in the United States and Greece by sponsoring domestic violence centers, shelters, and hotlines. I am proud to work with them on these important issues and look forward to continuing our partnership to empower the next generation of female Hellenic leaders.