Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from Claremont Review of Books, spring, 2022, titled ``In the Red,'' by Jeffrey H. Anderson.

In the Red

Our glidepath to insolvency.

When Ross Perot won an impressive 19 percent of the popular

vote as an independent candidate for president in 1992, his

main issue was the national debt. In one of his unusual,

half-hour-long campaign ads, Perot declared, ``Just this

year, we ran up $341 billion in new debt . . . . That's our

legislators and our president trying to buy our vote, this

year, with what used to be our money.''

Three decades later, our national debt--which reached $4

trillion the year that Perot ran--has hit $30 trillion. If

our debt were to keep rising at that rate over the next 60

years, it would increase more than 50-fold and surpass $1.5

quadrillion (a quadrillion, which sounds like a made-up

number, is a thousand trillions).

The portion of the national debt that really matters is the

almost 80 percent that's held by entities--whether foreign or

stateside--other than the federal government. Such ``debt

held by the public,'' which is fueled by deficit spending,

has to be paid back to outside entities, whereas debt not

held by the public merely involves intragovernmental

transfers. Foreign holdings compose about a third of all debt

held by the public. Japan and China hold by far the most

(over $1 trillion each), some of which belongs to private

investors and some to government entities. Put another way,

China--an increasingly hostile world superpower--has more

than $1 trillion of leverage over us.

It's getting worse, fast. Our recent deficit spending has

been truly historic. In 2020, based on official federal

tallies (the basis for all figures in this essay), the

federal government brought in $3.4 trillion in tax revenues

and dished our $6.6 trillion in spending--so, for every $10

that came in, $19 went out. This lavish expenditure smashed

the deficit record like New York's Bob Beamon smashed the

long-jump record in the 1968 Olympics. Beamon soared past the

previous record--27 feet, 4\3/4\ inches--to make an

astounding 29-foot, 2\1/2\-inch jump. In similar fashion,

with the deficit record sitting at $1.4 trillion, the federal

government in 2020 spent a spectacular $3.1 trillion that it

didn't have. In 2020 alone, the government racked up more

deficit spending than it had during the first 36 fiscal years

of the postwar era (1947 through 1982), and that's after

adjusting for inflation.

Even before our blowout spending during COVID, our deficits

had already reached breathtaking levels. In constant 2012

dollars (to adjust for inflation), the average annual deficit

during the four years from 2016 through 2019--a stretch of

relative peace and prosperity--was $700 billion. In

comparison, during the four years from 1942 through 1945--

during which we funded and fought a two-front war against

Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan--the average annual deficit

was $505 billion in constant 2012 dollars. After the war

(using the Office of Management and Budget's composite

deflator), we owed $3 trillion of debt held by the public in

constant 2012 dollars (four times what we owed when the war

began). Subsequent statesmen succeeded in cutting that tally

in half by 1974 (to $1.5 trillion), but it rose back to end-

of-World-War-II levels by 1986 (to $3 trillion), doubled end-

of-World-War-II levels by 2008 ($6 trillion), tripled them by

2010 ($9 trillion), quadrupled them by 2014 ($12 trillion),

quintupled them by 2019 ($15 trillion), and sextupled them by

2020 ($18 trillion).

In other words, we added as much debt held by the public in

2020 alone as we did from the end of World War II to the end

of 2008, and we racked up more debt in the 12 months of 2020

than we did during the four years of the Second World War.

That's after adjusting for inflation.

No Big Deal

And yet, incredibly, many politicians and commentators

claim that our staggering indebtedness is nothing much to

worry about. Unwilling to face the challenge of reining in

the budget, we seem to have thrown up our hands in recent

years and chosen to treat our ballooning deficits as funny

money.

Debt apologists like to measure taxes, spending, and debt

in relation to the gross domestic product (GDP), rather than

in relation to inflation or population growth. That way, if

Americans' tax bills double, but the economy doubles in size

over that same span, it can be said that Americans aren't

paying any more in taxes (as a percentage of GDP). The same

thing is true with the debt, which only rises by this measure

if it increases faster than economic output.

This way of talking partially masks the magnitude of our

debt problem by assuming that our government should grow

every bit as fast as our economy. Even so, by the percent-of-

GDP measure, debt held by the public is now at approximately

end-of-World War II levels. But whereas it fell dramatically

after World War II, there is no reason to think it will do so

now. It more than tripled from 2001 (32 percent of GDP) to

2020 (100 percent of GDP), putting us on course to surpass

300 percent of GDP if it grows at the same rate from 2020 to

2039.

For all of the myriad cultural, technological, and moral

problems we face, few things would guarantee the undoing of

the founders' experiment in self-government more surely than

continuing to pile on the burden, to ourselves and our

posterity, of runaway debt. Thomas Jefferson described fiscal

profligacy as a precursor to inevitable misery and suffering,

the first in a stampede of apocalyptic horsemen. ``[T]he fore

horse of this frightful team is public debt,'' he wrote.

``Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and

oppression.'' This wretchedness will only be more keenly felt

as interest rates rise. Too much debt puts power in the hands

of our enemies and renders the average American poorer every

year.

Mandatory Bankruptcy

The first step in avoiding a truly calamitous, debt-ridden

future is to understand bow we got ourselves into this

predicament to begin with. It is not national defense or even

the New Deal but rather the Great Society that is bankrupting

us.

A fundamental preliminary question is whether our

government taxes too little or spends too much. The answer is

easy to determine. In 2021, the federal government collected

more than three-and-a-half times as much money, in real

dollars per capita--that is, above and beyond inflation and

population growth--as it did at the start of the postwar

period. But it spent nearly seven times as much. From 1947

(the first postwar fiscal year, as FY 1946 began in July of

1945) through 2021, the population of the United States rose

2.3-fold, while prices rose nearly 13-fold. Combining these

two factors, the federal government could have collected and

spent 29 times as much in nominal dollars in 2021 as it did

in 1947 without collecting or spending any more in real

(inflation-adjusted) dollars per capita. Instead, the federal

government taxed more than 100 times as much in 2021 as in

1947 and spent almost 200 times as much. By any reasonable

standard, our government isn't afflicted by a shortage of tax

revenues but by an almost endless appetite for spending.

What are we spending all of that money on? Contra the

Left's repeated claims, it isn't defense--and our debt

problem wasn't created by Ronald Reagan. We actually spend

less per capita on defense now, after adjusting for

inflation, than we did during the Kennedy Administration.

Real per-capita defense spending fell from $2,283 in 1962 to

$1,953 in 2020, a drop of 14 percent. Even at the height of

the Reagan defense buildup, we exceeded the 1962 level by

only 2 percent. Meanwhile, real per-capita spending on

everything but defense increased more than eight-fold (from

$1,930 in 1962 to $15,646 in 2020). If overall federal

spending had followed the same trajectory as defense

spending, we would have had a surplus in 2020 of $2.1

trillion instead of a deficit of $3.1 trillion.

The problem isn't defense: it's health care. More

specifically, it was Lyndon Johnson and his (mostly)

Democratic congressional allies who put us on a glidepath

toward insolvency with the passage of their Great Society

programs. The New Deal put strain on the federal budget, to

be sure, but not enough to break it. By 1964, over three

decades after Franklin Roosevelt had taken office, federal

debt held by the public had fallen more than 40 percent from

the end of World War II, in real (inflation-adjusted)

dollars. The real deficit was 1/68th as large as it would be

in 2020. As the first Ford Mustangs rolled off the assembly

line, the country's debt was manageable and dropping, its

deficits were minimal, and seven of the postwar years had

actually produced surpluses. The next year, Johnson signed

legislation creating Medicare and Medicaid.

Broadly speaking, there are two ways to fund federal

programs. Congress either decides how much funding a program

will get (``discretionary'' spending), or just puts a program

on autopilot and finds out later how much it turned out to

cost (``mandatory'' spending). With discretionary spending,

Congress decides each year how much money to appropriate (for

something like national defense), taking into account such

quaint notions as what we need and what we can afford. With

``mandatory'' spending, Congress creates a program and

pledges to fund it at the same time, even though no one knows

what its price tag will be.

Within ``mandatory'' spending, there are programs that have

a dedicated and generally sufficient revenue stream (such as

Social Security), and there are those that do not have a

dedicated revenue stream that comes anywhere near covering

their costs--such as Medicare and Medicaid (and Obamacare,

part of which expanded Medicaid). Payroll taxes cover only

about a third of Medicare's costs and none of Medicaid's. In

other words, no one who launched these programs had any idea

how to pay for them.

This has had extraordinary consequences. The first year

that Medicare spending visibly hit the books was 1967. From

that point through 2020, Medicare and Medicaid cost a

combined $17.8 trillion, while our combined federal deficits

over that same span were $17.9 trillion. In essence, our

deficit problem is a Medicare and Medicaid problem.

The Father of Our Debt

By 1975, a decade after they were created, Medicare and

Medicaid were entrenched. From that point through 2019--the

most recent ``normal'' (pre-COVID) spending year--real per-

capita Medicare and Medicaid spending rose nine-fold (more

than triple the rise in Social Security costs over that

period). In 1975, we spent more than five times as much on

defense as on Medicare and Medicaid combined. By 2019, we

spent 56 percent more on Medicare and Medicaid than on

defense.

In 2019, the federal government collected about $10,500 in

revenues per capita and spent about $13,500. Here's how

Americans' contributions to the federal treasury were

allocated. The first $1,000 essentially just went into the

trash--it was used to pay interest on the debt, not to buy

anything. About $2,000 was spent on defense and another

$2,000 on non-defense discretionary spending. Roughly $3,000

was spent on Social Security, $3,000 on Medicare and Medicaid

(with about a 60 percent-40 percent split between them), and

$2,500 on other ``mandatory'' spending, to include much of

Obamacare, unemployment, welfare, etc. So, in all, about

$4,000 (or roughly 30 percent) was discretionary spending,

actually voted upon by Congress, and about $9,500 (roughly 70

percent) was either ``mandatory'' spending or payments on the

national debt.

If we had a Mount Rushmore of deficit spending, then,

Lyndon Johnson would merit George Washington's place of honor

as the father of our debt. Beside him would be the three most

recent presidents. For we have run up more debt under Barack

Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden--even after adjusting

for inflation--than we did under the previous 42

presidents combined. After a brief period of fiscal

responsibility under Bill Clinton, the average annual

deficit soared to $455 billion under George W. Bush ($41

billion more than under his father), $857 billion under

Obama, and $1.462 trillion under Trump (who was averaging

$805 billion even before COVID hit).

Again--amazingly--these figures are adjusted for inflation.

They are based on each president's having been responsible

for the deficit the year after he took office--for example,

Obama, who took office when fiscal year 2009 was already

underway, was responsible for fiscal years 2010 through 2017.

But note the following exceptions: the $179 billion in Obama-

signed ``stimulus'' funds spent in 2009, and the $1.115

trillion in Biden-signed COVID ``stimulus'' funds spent in

2021 are treated as part of Obama's and Biden's deficit

tallies, respectively; and the $147 billion in TARP loans

repaid in 2010 ($110 billion) and 2011 ($37 billion) are

counted as reductions in George W. Bush's deficit tallies, as

they paid back money that was counted as deficit spending

when it was loaned out on Bush's watch.

Clinton is the obvious outlier, having managed an average

annual surplus of $3 billion during his eight years in

office, six of them with a Republican Congress. After Perot

sounded the alarm and Republicans won the House for the first

time in four decades, Speaker Newt Gingrich and his

Republican colleagues--working with Clinton--made good on the

Contract with America's pledge to balance the budget. They

cut defense spending, passed welfare reform, benefitted from

a strong economy that increased revenues, and were able to

lower federal interest payments as the debt fell. Most

surprisingly, however, they managed to cut Medicare spending,

via reforms passed through the Balanced Budget Act of 1997

(BBA). After Medicare's costs had quadrupled from 1982 to

1997, they actually dropped from 1998 to 1999--not just in

comparison to inflation, but in terms of the actual number of

dollars that went out the door.

It was around this time that the ``experts'' decided the

work was done and the free-spending days could return once

again. In 2002, after the George W. Bush tax cues had been

enacted, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that

the federal government would run a surplus in nine out of the

ten years from 2003 through 2012 and a decade-long surplus of

$2.3 trillion. It turned out that the federal government ran

a deficit in all ten of those years and a decade-long deficit

of $7.l trillion. The CBO also projected that debt held by

the public at the end of 2012 would be $1.3 trillion. It

turned out to be $11.3 trillion, so the CBO was off by $10

trillion and a factor of nearly nine.

Despite this subsequent debt explosion, the Clinton-

Gingrich era was a successful one in terms of fiscal

responsibility. Indeed, over the past 40 years, deficits have

been lowest when a Democrat has been in the White House and

Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress. The

second-best scenario has been a Republican president with

either party controlling both houses of Congress. Next-best

has been a Democratic president paired with a mixed Congress

(with each party controlling one house), followed by a

Republican president paired with a mixed Congress. The worst

scenario has been Democratic control of the whole government.

Over the past four decades, Democratic control (average

deficit of $1.1 trillion in constant 2012 dollars) has been

more than twice as costly as Republican control ($490

billion).

No matter who is in power, however, about 70 percent of our

spending--consuming about 90 percent of our tax revenues--is

on autopilot. To balance the budget by focusing solely on

cutting those portions of the budget that Congress actively

controls through the appropriations process, we would have to

cut discretionary spending--which includes defense--by about

75 percent. Any realistic effort to balance the budget,

therefore, must focus on ``mandatory'' spending.

Fixing Our Mess

Medicare absolutely must be reformed. Its autopilot has

malfunctioned and is flying not only the plane but also the

country into the ground. We came tantalizingly close to

fixing things back in 1999, when the National Bipartisan

Commission on the Future of Medicare grew out of the BBA and

drafted an appealing blueprint for reform. The Commission,

chaired by Democratic Senator John Breaux and Republican

Congressman Bill Thomas, floated a variety of proposals, most

notably ``premium support,'' which would utilize private

competition to keep public costs down. But events intervened:

Politico healthcare editor Adriel Bettelheim writes that

``with the Monica Lewinsky scandal festering and the threat .

. . of impeachment growing, [Clinton] took a very public turn

to appease his left flank'' and turned against the commission

just as it was wrapping up its 11 months of work.

Nevertheless, the commission was a serious effort at

exploring promising ideas, many of which Congressman Paul

Ryan picked up during his Obamacare-fighting era. Ryan's

advocacy of premium support did not keep him from being

tapped as Mitt Romney's 2012 running mate, nor did it hurt

the Romney-Ryan ticket (Romney did that all on his own). This

suggests that Medicare reform can be politically viable when

advanced with determination and skill.

Medicaid also cannot go on in its present form. Its funding

system, whereby every $1 of state funding is matched by

between $1 and $9 of federal funding, invites waste and

inefficiency. The more a state spends on Medicaid, the more

federal money it gets. If it manages to reform its Medicaid

program, it gets at most half of the savings--usually far

less. Also, states often hire consultants who concoct

elaborate shell games to exaggerate states' Medicaid funding,

thereby

bringing in even more federal money, much of which funds non-

Medicaid ventures. If Medicaid were reformed so that each

stare simply received a given amount of federal funding,

independent of the state's level of funding, that would

presumably remove most of these perverse incentives and

reduce Medicaid's costs.

Social Security has always been self-funded, but it too is

projected to dip into the red about a dozen years from now.

It poses nowhere near the threat to our fiscal solvency that

Medicare and Medicaid do, bur its costs have still risen

faster than overall federal spending, and it does need to be

sensibly revised. The percentage of the U.S. population that

is over age 75 is roughly the same as the percentage that was

over age 65 when Social Security was created, yet the

eligibility age for receiving full retirement benefits has

been raised just two years (from 65 to 67) over the past

eight decades. Gradually (but not too gradually) raising that

age to reflect current biological and fiscal realities is an

obvious and necessary fix.

In addition to changing individual programs, there are

measures we can take to promote fiscal responsibility more

generally. Simply demanding a balanced budget, either as a

matter of policy or through a constitutional amendment, will

not do: the state could still spend as much as it accrued,

which might encourage ever-greater levels of taxation to fund

an ever-larger government, as in many European countries.

Instead, we ought to focus on measures that can keep spending

itself low.

For instance, the American citizenry would be more apt to

view the debt as a shared concern if nearly everyone paid at

least some income tax, as Florida Senator Rick Scott has

proposed. At the least, no one's income tax bill should go

negative, as it does when tax credits are made

``refundable''--available not as a tax cut but as a payment

to those who don't pay income tax. A few years ago, I

released ``The Main Street Tax Plan'' (Hudson Institute,

2016), which the Tax Foundation said would reduce deficits.

It declared, ``Nearly everyone should be paying something in

income tax, however small, and Americans shouldn't regard

April 15 as a payday.''

Some, such as Senator Mitch McConnell, oppose Scott's

proposal because--in McConnell's words--it ``raises taxes''

(for people who don't pay income taxes). Those who share this

concern should consider pairing refund reform with an end to

the Medicare payroll tax. Unlike the Social Security payroll

tax, which is viral and funds Social Security as a (more or

less) pay-in-for-yourself program, the Medicare payroll tax

funds only about a third of Medicare and helps perpetuate the

false notion that Medicare too is mostly pay-in-for-yourself.

Eliminating the Medicare payroll tax would soften the

perception of Medicare as an entitlement, simplify the tax

code, and ease the tax burden of the working poor. Combining

this with Scott's plan would encourage more people to care

about the size and scope of the federal government.

In 2010, back when the Tea Party was ascendant and the

national debt was $13 trillion rather than $30 trillion, I

proposed (in National Affairs) a Limited Government Amendment

to the Constitution. Such an amendment would limit annual

increases in federal spending to inflation plus two

percentage points, except during a formally declared war, or

if two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of state

legislatures authorized additional spending for other

reasons. An amendment in this spirit could greatly facilitate

fiscal restraint.

It has become fashionable to think of constitutional

amendments as relics from the past. But then, so are fiscal

responsibility and--increasingly--representative government.

The founders made the Constitution amendable for a reason,

and we should take our cues from them. In the late 1990s, we

showed--briefly--that it's possible to take action to reverse

our course and help save our country from the tragic fate

that Jefferson described. But the first step is to recognize

that the $30 trillion elephant in the room isn't going away.

It's just growing bigger.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, sadly, to H.R. 2773. Although protecting our endangered species is truly a worthy cause, our country is not fiscally sound, and to commit $1.4 billion a year in perpetuity is exactly the kind of spending that has landed us in the mess we are now in.

Let me be clear: we do not have the money. In the 30 years since 1992, the national debt has increased from $4 trillion to $30 trillion. Mr. Anderson notes in his article that:

At that rate over the next 60 years, our debt would

increase by more than 50-fold to surpass $1.5 quadrillion. In

case one is wondering, a quadrillion is 1,000 trillions.

Mr. Speaker, some might say: Just raise taxes. But, Mr. Speaker, the author of the article points out that, in fact, the Federal Government last year taxed over 100 times what it did in the first postwar year and spent nearly 200 times as much. So taxes are not the problem. Spending is the problem.

The $1.4 billion per year is perpetual. Now, under anyone's measure, perpetuity is a long time. Since this money will never be paid back, some might say like those deep in credit card debt: We will just pay the interest.

The interest on $1.5 billion for 30 years at current rates of 3.4 percent is $51 million a year. But, Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the current total interest bill. It is estimated to be almost $400 billion a year or about 8.7 percent of everything we spend.

Why would we add to this enormous obligation?

There is a quote by Ernest Hemingway: How did you go bankrupt?

The answer is: Gradually, then suddenly.

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly how bankruptcy works. You can keep spending recklessly and rack up debts for a while--even a long while-- but at some point, it comes to an end abruptly. We have ignored our Nation's spending problems for far too long. We have been going bankrupt gradually, and I fear the day will come when we will go bankrupt immediately.

We must correct this course. For this reason, I cannot support, sadly, this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment No. 8.

This fiscally responsible amendment would establish a 1.85 percent administrative cap for the Department of the Interior when implementing title III of this bill.

Title I of the bill, which provides funding to State fish and wildlife departments for species conservation, includes a 1.85 percent administrative cap.

Title II of the bill, which covers Tribal Wildlife Conservation and Restoration, includes a 3 percent administrative cap for the Department of the Interior.

However, as currently drafted, title III does not have an administrative cap.

The original intent of this bill was to provide States with funding to conserve species of greatest conservation need.

Unfortunately, the majority decided to ignore the committee process by airdropping in title III to give more funding to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Not only did they circumvent process to add the entire title to the bill, they didn't carry over any of the good government amendments made in committee.

Under the current text, the State and Tribal portions of the bill would be subject to strict administrative caps, but the Federal Government would not be. This is backwards, as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service needs much more oversight since the agency is part of the reason we find ourselves in the position we are currently in with respect to the broken Endangered Species Act.

Additionally, the programs funded in title III already receive existing appropriations, and if the majority would like to increase them, they should do it through the appropriations process instead of airdropping in another layer of statute and bureaucracy into the legislation.

For these reasons, title III should be struck from the bill. Unfortunately, the majority refused to allow a vote on my colleague from Utah's amendment that would have done just that.

The very least we can do is at least ensure that title III is subject to the same administrative requirements as the other titles.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, S. 3823 would make modest and temporary changes to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

First, the bill temporarily increases debt limits for small business debtors under subchapter V of chapter 11 and for individual debtors reorganizing debt under chapter 13.

Subchapter V of the Bankruptcy Code is a lower cost reorganization bankruptcy option for small businesses. These businesses don't have deep pockets, and traditional, expensive chapter 11 reorganizations may not be feasible.

Subchapter V is a more affordable and streamlined approach, which can lead to more successful reorganizations. That means that both debtors and creditors should be better off because, hopefully, less of the debtor's estate will go toward professional fees and more will be left for the debtor's business and, ultimately, the creditors.

Subchapter V took effect in February 2020. At that time, the debt limit for those wishing to utilize this more streamlined law was just over $2.7 million. Due in part to expected trouble for small businesses, the CARES Act and later legislation temporarily increased the debt limit for subchapter V filers to $7.5 million. That temporary increase sunsetted in March of this year. This bill again extends the $7.5 million debt limit for another 2 years.

Likewise, the bill also changes the bankruptcy debt limits for chapter 13, which is a way for eligible individuals, including sole proprietors, to reorganize their debts. The bill removes the distinction between secured and unsecured debt limits under chapter 13 and increases the overall debt limit for those who wish to file for their individual protection from about $1.9 million to $2.75 million.

Like the adjustment to subchapter V, these changes to chapter 13 apply for only 2 years. Put simply, Americans are having a harder time making ends meet due to what I think we would agree are mistakes made under the Biden administration and Democrats in control of Congress.

Raising the debt limit will allow those suffering from these failed policies to adjust their debts to fit the new

realities of our economy, skyrocketing energy and input costs, not enough workers, and more. A successful reorganization can leave both debtors and creditors better off.

At the same time, we just don't have certain data about some of these bankruptcy policy changes or their likely long-term effects. That is why these changes to our Bankruptcy Code should be temporary.

An additional 2 years of normal post-pandemic bankruptcy activity will give us a better understanding of the underlying policy issues and will help guide the future design of our bankruptcy system.

It is also worth noting that this bill did not go through regular order in the Judiciary Committee, so it did not benefit from robust oversight or legislative hearings. Americans are best served when Federal policy is made after careful and focused congressional deliberation, something that would have occurred in regular order.

The bill makes clarifications to small business bankruptcies that relate to eligibility, trustee responsibilities, and bankruptcy plan requirements. These would be permanent. The bill also makes accounting- related clarifications that will operate to improve the U.S. Trustee System Fund.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today our law enforcement officers are under immense pressure as they face more and more criminal activity with fewer and fewer resources.

Often, officers are called on to respond to high-stress situations involving people who are an extreme emotional or altered mental states.

This bill will help law enforcement to better understand and interact with individuals experiencing traumatic brain injuries or post- traumatic stress disorder.

While traumatic brain injuries affect people of all ages and backgrounds, data suggests that there is a higher prevalence among certain groups, including veterans, the homeless, and those who have been incarceration. These groups are also more likely to have encounters with law enforcement.

Studies have shown that it is often difficult for law enforcement officers to differentiate between those suffering from brain injuries or PTSD, and those who are intoxicated by alcohol or drugs.

For example, common signs of intoxication, such as slurred speech, outbursts of anger, slow response times, and forgetfulness can also be signs of traumatic brain injury. Training officers to recognize the differences between traumatic brain injury or PTSD and intoxication can lead to more favorable outcomes for the officers and the individuals they encounter.

This bill will require the Bureau of Justice Assistance within the Justice Department to develop training that will inform officers on what type of treatment and resources the individual may need.

For individuals suffering from traumatic brain injury, medical referrals may be the most appropriate. This training will promote the safety of our men and women in uniform and improve public safety in our communities.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, it is important to note that seeing this body support law enforcement, rather than to condemn it, is a welcome, if only brief, departure from how Democrats have treated our police forces over the past 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Colonel Jeffrey B. Edwards, United States Air Force, for his exceptional dedication and distinguished service to the United States of America. Colonel Edwards will retire on May 15, 2022, from his current assignment as the Commander of the 173rd Fighter Wing at Kingsley Field in Klamath Falls, Oregon. We thank him for his commitment to our country over the past 27 years.

Colonel Edwards graduated from the United States Air Force Academy in 1995. His first mission took him to Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska, then to Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida, and then Osan Air Base in the Republic of Korea. During his time in Alaska, he was deployed twice to defend our nation, which included 52 combat sorties in Operation SOUTHERN WATCH in Iraq and Operation ALLIED FORCE, over eastern Europe. In 2000, he was assigned to Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida, where he served as an F-15C fighter pilot instructor, training the next generation of fighter pilots. In 2003, Colonel Edwards was stationed in Osan Air Base in the Republic of Korea as the Chief of Air Defense Plans for the 7th Air Force. After his service in Korea, in 2004, he joined the Oregon National Guard at Kingsley Field. In 2006, Colonel Edwards attended United States Air Force Weapons School. In 2019, after serving in several positions at Kingsley Field, he earned the Command of the 173rd Fighter Wing. Colonel Edwards has been awarded the 173rd Fighter Wing Instructor Pilot of the Year award, the USAF Weapons School F-15 Academic Award, the 19th Air Force Air-to-Air Fighter Pilot Instructor of the Year, the Meritorious Service Medal, Aerial Achievement Medal, and the Air Force Commendation Medal. His service has included over 3,200 flight hours. Colonel Edwards embodies the Air Force Core Values of Integrity First, Service Before Self, and Excellence In All We Do as a Commander, leader, and Airman.

Kingsley Field is a critical asset for American national security. It serves as an outstanding training center for the Air National Guard and active-duty pilots. In Colonel Edwards' time as Commander, Kingsley Field was designated as first in line to function as a formal training unit for the Boeing F-15EX fighter jet. A critical part of domestic defense missions, the first operational F-15EX squadron was designated to operate in the Oregon Air National Guard. Additionally, Colonel Edwards led Kingsley Field effectively through the COVID-19 pandemic. Plans were formalized for Kingsley Field's dedicated men and women to support their families while carefully maintaining the overall mission. In 2021, he seamlessly balanced the activation of over 250 Airmen for COVID-19 and hospital support. In 2022, over 145 members were activated to help the State of Oregon's deal with the Omicron variant. During this time, never once did Colonel Edwards' leadership waver. He stands on the front line, supporting innovation in aircraft, managing issues as they arise, and holding fast to a vision of a better future.

Furthermore, Colonel Edwards extends his focus on the future beyond his service to the men and women of Kingsley Field as a member of my Military Service Academy Nomination Board, which includes other exceptional active and retired officers. His experience as an Air Force Academy graduate, a pilot and a leader provides invaluable help as he, and the other military officers of my annual nomination board, interview students to assess their character, leadership, physical aptitude, motivation, academic preparation, extracurricular, and community service activities.

For a man who has demonstrated such strong leadership, allegiance, and sacrifice during his service to our Nation, recognition is a very modest attempt to thank him.

We indeed owe a serious debt of gratitude to Colonel Edwards, because, though technology, time, and power may change, the attributes of a good leader remain unchanged. Colonel Edwards has dedicated his life to this nation, and we thank him for the service, vision, and leadership he has demonstrated both at home and abroad.

Madam Speaker, as we reach the culmination of his distinguished career, I join my colleagues today in congratulating Colonel Edwards for his lifetime of service to our country. We wish him, his wife, Teresa, and their six children: Matthew 22, Anna 20, Andrew 17, Rachel 14, Sarah 12, and James 10 best wishes as he retires from the United States Air Force.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that last week we celebrated National Park Week. Each April we celebrate our national parks and invite every American

to get out and actually experience them.

My home State of Oregon harbors five units of the National Park System: Crater Lake National Park, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, Nez Perce National Historical Park, and Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve. I look forward to at least the next century of visitors discovering Oregon's parks and everything Oregon has to offer.

In recent years the National Park Service has made a concerted effort to provide a more inclusive look at American history to ensure that our parks tell the stories of all Americans. I applaud the National Park Service for its effort to make all Americans feel welcome and included in our National Park System.

S. 270, the Brown v. Board of Education Historic Site Expansion Act, adds to the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site currently located in Topeka, Kansas, so that it would include additional sites in South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and the District of Columbia each as an affiliated area.

This bill will help to recognize and preserve sites associated with the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case, which resulted in a landmark Supreme Court ruling that racial segregation of public schools is unconstitutional. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the students, parents, and lawyers whose extraordinary courage and vision led to the dismantling of the separate but equal doctrine.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of S. 270, and I look forward to its being signed into law. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2793, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, to reauthorize the Highlands Conservation Act.

The stated purpose of the Highlands Conservation Act, which was signed into law in 2004, is ``to recognize the importance of the water, forest, agricultural, wildlife, recreational, and cultural resources of the Highlands region,'' which, as was indicated, spans some 3.4 million acres across Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, ``and the national significance of the Highlands region to the United States.''

Under the current authorization, the Governors of these States identify conservation partnership projects in the region and submit a list annually to the Secretary of the Interior, who is tasked with working with the Secretary of Agriculture to submit a final list to Congress for approval and funding.

H.R. 2793 would reauthorize the Highlands Conservation Act and allow municipalities to enter into conservation agreements with the Department of the Interior. This bill is the product of bipartisan negotiations with the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3525, offered by Representative Meng, to authorize a commission to study the potential creation of a National Museum of Asian Pacific American History and Culture.

My home State of Oregon has a proud and growing Asian-American and Pacific-Islander population. Oregon is home to many cultural centers, museums, gardens, and historic sites related to Asian-American and Pacific-Islander heritage.

This commission would be tasked with preparing a report for Congress and the President providing recommendations regarding the feasibility of establishing and maintaining a National Museum of Asian Pacific American History and Culture in Washington, D.C.

The commission would be required to consider several factors, including the availability and cost of the collections to be acquired, the cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining the museum, and the feasibility of the museum becoming part of the Smithsonian Institution.

While I support this bill, I am concerned about the significant financial and operational challenges that adding an additional national museum to the Smithsonian's portfolio could pose.

Just 2 years ago, Congress authorized the establishment of the National Museum of the American Latino and American Women's History Museum. In addition to constructing two new museums, the Smithsonian is facing a facilities maintenance backlog approaching $1 billion; identified collection storage needs; a $900 million renovation of the National Air and Space Museum expected to conclude this year; and ongoing rehabilitation of other historic structures on the National Mall.

I appreciate Chair Grijalva's willingness to address Republican concerns about the Smithsonian's capacity. At markup, an amendment was adopted to require the commission to consider the potential impact on the Smithsonian's existing maintenance backlog and identified construction or renovation costs for new or existing museums.

Additionally, I appreciate an amendment adopted at markup to prohibit the use of Federal funds for the commission. These are good governance amendments that will strengthen the commission's work and eventual report.

I appreciate our friends on the other side of the aisle taking this bill through regular order and working with Republicans to address our concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say how important this bill is, in part because of the incredibly valuable folks we have in my part of my State, including the Kitamuras, the Nagakis, the Maedas, the Nambas, the Saitos, the Itos, the Tanakas, the Teramuras, and many others, all of whom are absolutely wonderful parts of our community.

They are also incredibly conservative, and I am sure will be happy to see the portions of this bill that reflect the agreement to make sure that we are able to pay for whatever it is that we do. They are truly deserving of this recognition.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5973, a bill sponsored by our colleague, Representative Debbie Dingell from Michigan, to reauthorize the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act.

Under the authorities provided by this law, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed six common Great Lakes fish and wildlife restoration goals in collaboration with State and local partners. To date, 81 fish and wildlife restoration grant projects have been funded through this cooperative effort.

This law has been reauthorized three times, most recently in 2016. The bill we are considering today would extend these authorities until 2027 without increasing funding authorization.

We appreciate Congresswoman Dingell's commitment not to move this bill until the Fish and Wildlife Service provided a mandatory report to Congress. In late March, we finally received this report, which allowed us to evaluate the current program and its progress toward meeting its goals.

I commend Congresswoman Dingell for her leadership on this legislation, and I urge adoption of the measure.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6023, a bipartisan bill sponsored by

Representative Jim Costa of California to reauthorize the Multinational Species Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2013 and to require the U.S. Postal Service to sell all remaining Multinational Species Conservation Fund Semipostal Stamps.

The Multinational Species Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp Act of 2010 first directed the Postal Service to issue this stamp to support the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Multinational Species Conservation Fund, which provides grants, as previously outlined by the previous speaker.

According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, stamp sales have raised more than $5.7 million for the fund as of 2019. The authorization for offering the stamp expired in 2017, at which point the Postal Service suspended the sale, despite having more than 49 million printed and unsold stamps on hand.

H.R. 6023 would direct the Postal Service to sell the remainder of these stamps and report to Congress when all have been sold.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. Costa for his leadership on this legislation. I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6201 offered by Representative Watson Coleman would extend the authorization for the establishment of a memorial to honor the approximately 5,000 enslaved and free Black Revolutionary War patriots who served as soldiers or provided civilian assistance during the American Revolution.

In 2014, Congress authorized the National Liberty Memorial to be established in Area 1 in Washington, D.C., which is defined by the Commemorative Works Act as a location just off the National Mall.

Under the Commemorative Works Act, sponsoring organizations are provided a 7-year period to construct the memorial, which unfortunately has expired.

The subject matter of this memorial is extremely important, and I support extending the authority for the National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. to continue its valuable work to construct a lasting memorial in our Nation's Capital to honor the brave enslaved and free Black Revolutionary War patriots that fought to secure American independence.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6651, the Alaska Salmon Research Task Force Act, sponsored by our late colleague, the dean of the House, Representative Don Young of Alaska.

The day before his passing, Congressman Don Young was in our Natural Resources Committee room discussing the need for this legislation.

Since 2018 alone, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has issued 14 fisheries disasters determinations in Alaska. This bill seeks scientific answers and recommendations to solve these declining salmon runs.

Specifically, the bill would require the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Governor of Alaska, to create an Alaska Salmon Research Task Force composed of up to 19 individuals representing various sectors of the salmon economy and culture.

The intent of the task force is to create a coordinated salmon research strategy, and support collaboration and coordination in salmon conservation efforts. The task force must also produce a report and recommendations within 1 year of convening.

If Mr. Young were here today, I am certain that he would remind us that salmon are important to Alaskans due to their cultural, economic, and recreational value. I urge my colleagues to honor the late dean of the House by supporting this bill.

Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 497, the American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act, introduced by Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska.

This legislation is simple: It directs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to reestablish an American Fisheries Advisory Committee for the purpose of selecting grant projects that meet the research needs and priorities of the commercial fishing industry.

This committee will include a board of experts, with members chosen regionally and across all sectors of the fishing industry, and will help provide significant input on how research grants will be focused on fishing communities.

One goal of this bill is to keep fishing communities healthy and viable through local collaboration. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which was introduced in the House our late colleague, Representative Don Young, and commend Representative Young and Senator Sullivan for their efforts.

Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 441, as amended, that will direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Indian Health Service, to convey by warranty deed and for health- related activities certain parcels of Federal land to the Tanana Tribal Council, the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium, and the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium.

This amended text is a compilation of three separate Indian healthcare land transfer bills for the State of Alaska introduced by the late Congressman Don Young. All three of these bills were favorably reported out of the Committee on Natural Resources by unanimous consent during this Congress.

The first land transfer directed under this act includes 10.25 acres of land in Tanana, Alaska. In 1995, the Tanana Tribal Council assumed responsibility for healthcare services from the Indian Health Service. The parcel of land the Tribe is seeking title to encompasses a portion of a former Indian Health Service hospital site. The council intends to use the land to construct a new community wellness clinic, expand eldercare, and develop nursing services.

The second transfer includes 10.87 acres of land that is part of the Mt. Edgecumbe Hospital campus in Sitka, Alaska. The Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium is a Native-run nonprofit health organization that assumed responsibility for providing healthcare services from the Indian Health Service in 1976 and currently operates its Mt. Edgecumbe Hospital in Sitka. The consortium intends to use the parcel to support future hospital expansion and replacement.

The third land transfer under this act includes 3.5 acres of land that is part of the Alaska Native Medical Center campus in Anchorage. In 1999, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium assumed responsibility for healthcare services from the Indian Health Service, and the consortium provides comprehensive medical services at the Alaska Native Medical Center.

The ANTHC is the largest Native-run nonprofit health organization in the United States, serving more than 178,000 Native Alaskans. Gaining title to the parcels will enable the ANTHC to streamline its operations, update and refurbish, and expand the hospital's capacity to offer health services to patients outside of Anchorage.

Before I conclude, I will take a moment to again recognize all the hard work Congressman Young put into serving his constituents and, notably, his work for Native people in Alaska during his tenure in Congress. I think it is more than appropriate that we are renaming this legislation after the late dean of the House, further memorializing his efforts for Native Alaskans. Mr. Young will be deeply missed by all of us.

Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there is a war raging in Ukraine, killing thousands and thousands of innocent people.

Gasoline, diesel, and grocery prices are through the roof.

For all practical purposes, we don't have a southern border anymore, so hundreds of thousands of immigrants continue to flood into the United States, and the situation there is about to get much worse.

Rampant inflation is making short work of the hard-earned money of all Americans, but the main priority for the Democrats this week isn't Ukraine, skyrocketing gasoline prices, 8 percent inflation, or the border crisis. No. Instead, it is marijuana.

It has been obvious for years that at some point, marijuana was going to be formally legalized. What is deeply and truly disturbing, however, about this bill is its failure to address the clear consequences of legalization--such as what this drug does to children, to drivers on our highways, to the mental health of up to 30 percent of those adults who choose to use marijuana, to communities inundated with hundreds, if not thousands, of foreign cartel-operated, unlicensed, and out-of- control marijuana growers, and finally, to those who actually try to produce cannabis, marijuana, legally.

Let's take a closer look at Oregon, my State, to see what really happens when marijuana is legalized without careful and necessary thought.

The picture behind me is a hoop house. It is about 100-feet long and 50-feet wide. At current retail, it will produce about $6 million worth of marijuana a year.

The next picture is a picture of a grow consisting of 30 to 40 hoop houses. By the way, these are all in my district in southern Oregon. And if each of these hoop houses is in full production, 40 hoop houses would generate $240 million, at retail, of marijuana each year.

To put this in perspective, there are currently 180 grows like this in Jackson County, Oregon, alone, many of which are illegal. Hundreds upon hundreds of hoop houses.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a video taken from a helicopter of approximately 180 grows in Jackson County be entered into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I will move on.

These operations are, in large part, unlicensed, uncontrolled, unregulated, operated on stolen water, ignoring building codes, ignoring land use laws, ignoring labor laws, and importing thousands upon thousands of immigrants to work in squalor and in fear.

Why? Because the Federal Government has refused to help the overwhelmed local law enforcement officers meet the huge challenge these cartels present.

In fact, months ago, I directly asked Attorney General Garland and again, several weeks ago, for his assistance in getting the FBI, Homeland Security, and the DEA to help us in southern Oregon, and I have heard nothing, absolutely nothing, back from him.

This is why it is essential that any bill dealing with legalization include significant money for law enforcement. We are certainly not getting any help from the Attorney General.

This picture behind me is what the living conditions are like for the immigrants working for the cartels.

We are experiencing one of the worst droughts in the history of the western United States. Water is gold in my district. Cartels are stealing water and using it to grow marijuana.

Water regulators in southern Oregon have been threatened with death by cartel members when they have tried to stop water theft. Here is a picture of some of the stolen water.

When the crop is harvested, hoop houses are abandoned, the migrant laborers disappear, and the mess is left for someone else to clean up. Here is what that looks like.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the record the Politico article labeled ``. . . Why Legal Weed Didn't Kill Oregon's Black Market,'' dated January 14, 2022.

``Talk About Clusterf---': Why Legal Weed Didn't Kill Oregon's Black

Market

Cave Junction, Ore.--The first unlicensed cannabis grow

popped up near Gary Longnecker's remote Southern Oregon home

seven years ago. Now there are six farms surrounding the

densely-forested property. ``Last night I woke up at 12:30

with gunshots. [Then again] this morning, seven o'clock,''

Longnecker said as he and I walked his land in November.

``That's them intimidating all of us neighbors to keep out of

their face.'' A Vietnam veteran and former firefighter,

Longnecker retired to the woods of southern Oregon almost 30

years ago to get some peace and quiet, but that's not exactly

what he's found. Historically a logging community, the

residents of the Illinois Valley near Cave Junction are still

drastically outnumbered by trees--and they prefer it that

way. In most places, you could yell at the top of your lungs

from your front door without another soul hearing. Many

people in the county own a gun, and typically aim them at

deer or bears--not their neighbors. But since the cannabis

farmers moved in (none of whom appear to be licensed based on

state records), Longnecker says he's had bullets whiz by his

head when working outside, and regularly hears gunshots in

the middle of the night. Trash and toilet paper are littered

around the thin wire fence that separates his forested land

from each cannabis farm. As Longnecker gave me a tour of his

property, a few people could be seen moving around on the

property through the scattered pine trees and partially-

deconstructed hoop houses. Longnecker's partner called out to

them in broken Spanish, since she believed

most of the workers were Hispanic. No one answered. A few

moments later, shots rang out. ``So that's called

intimidation,'' Longnecker said as we hurried away. It's a

word that I heard often when I spoke with residents about

their marijuana-growing neighbors. Over the last two years,

there's been such an influx of outlaw farmers that southern

Oregon now rivals California's notorious Emerald Triangle as

a national center of illegal weed cultivation. Even though

marijuana cultivation has been legal in Oregon since 2014,

Jackson County Sheriff Nate Sickler says there could be up to

1,000 illegal operations in a region of more than 4,000

square miles. The Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission,

which oversees the state's $1.2 billion legal cannabis

industry, estimates the number of illicit operations is

double that. Local law enforcement officials believe that

people from every U.S. state and as many as 20 countries have

purchased property in Jackson or Josephine counties. Cartels

roll in and offer long-time residents as much as a million

dollars in cash for their property, and hoop houses follow

soon after the sale is complete. Residents have become

accustomed to hearing Bulgarian, Chinese, Russian and even

Hebrew spoken at the grocery store. ``Two weeks ago, we took

down a Bulgarian operation and in the same week an

Argentinian operation,'' said Josephine County Sheriff Dave

Daniel, adding that they've also recently dealt with Chinese-

and Mexican-run oufits. ``A lot of these organizations,

before the legal market came into effect, would grow in the

forest lands--they'd be up in the hills,'' explained Obie

Strickler, a licensed cannabis grower in Josephine County.

``Now they're . . . right out in the open.'' What is

happening in the woods of the southern Oregon represents one

of the most confounding paradoxes of the legalized marijuana

movement: States with some of the largest legal markets are

also dealing with rampant illegal production--and the problem

is getting worse. Oklahoma, where licenses to cultivate

medical marijuana are some of the easiest to get in the

nation, has conducted more than five dozen raids on illicit

grows since last April. In California, meanwhile, most of the

state continues to purchase cannabis from unlicensed

sources--straining legal operators already struggling with

the state's high taxes and fees. It wasn't supposed to be

this way. One of the underlying promises for legalizing

cannabis was that legalization would make the illegal drug

trade, with all its attendant problems of violent crime and

money laundering, disappear. But 25 years into the

legalization movement, as 36 states have adopted some form of

legalized marijuana, the black market is booming across the

country. Legal states such as Oregon and California--which

have been supplying the nation for nigh on 60 years--are

still furnishing the majority of America's illegal weed.

Oregon's weed is some of the cheapest in the nation, and

Oregonians predominantly purchase weed from licensed

dispensaries. Economist Beau Whitney estimates that 80-85

percent of the state's demand is met by the legal market. But

most of the illicit weed grown in southern Oregon is leaving

the state, heading to places where legal weed is still not

available for purchase `such as New York or Pennsylvania--or

where the legal price is still very high, like Chicago and

Los Angeles. In Illinois, which legalized medical marijuana

in 2013, only about a third of the demand for cannabis is

satisfied by legal dispensaries, according to Whitney.

Differences in tax rate and regulations plays the major role

in differences from state to state, Whitney explains.

Unlicensed growers aren't paying any fees or taxes, and they

can afford to keep their prices at least 20 percent lower

than legal weed--the benchmark Whitney says is the difference

in consumers purchasing legal versus illegal products.

``It all comes down to economics,'' said Whitney. ``If you

reduce the price, then there's no, or little, or less,

incentive [for consumers] to participate in [the] illicit

market because you're getting the price that you want . . .

that's the tipping point.'' The macro-economics of the

marijuana market are small consolation to residents of

Oregon, who say they are caught in a regulatory gap between

state law, which fully legalized cannabis in 2014, and

federal law, which still considers cannabis to be as illegal

as heroin. The one exception in federal law is for hemp, a

low-THC cannabis plant which looks virtually identical to the

naked eye. Officials say that some of Oregon's illegal farms

are masquerading as hemp producers to escape federal

oversight. There are just more than 1,000 licensed marijuana

and hemp farms in Jackson and Josephine counties, but a

recent test of the region's hemp farms found that more than

half were illegally growing marijuana--not the low-THC hemp.

``[They] easily danced into the hemp program and got

administrative protection,'' said Oregon Liquor and Cannabis

Commission Executive Director Steve Marks. ``They inundated

that program.'' On top of that, there could be a thousand or

more unlicensed grows that never bothered with a hemp

license. The impact of the booming illegal trade is being

felt by overburdened law enforcement that can't keep up with

the illegal operations that seem to sprout with abandon, but

it is also exhausting the patience of residents who were key

to making Oregon one of the first states to legalize medical

marijuana in the late 1990s. ``The danger of what's going on

and the fear and worry folks in southern Oregon are feeling

about their safety cannot be overstated,'' Sen. Ron Wyden (D-

Ore.), the influential chairman of the Finance Committee,

told POLITICO in December. ``And it's all the more reason why

federal cannabis prohibition is just not working.'' Nicole

Rensenbrink, a 62-year-old social worker, travels daily along

a curving two-lane road that weaves between groves of tall

trees and dozens of farms before finally passing the local

high school. Along her seven-minute commute to work, she

passes 14 marijuana cultivation or processing sites. She's

not an expert, but she can tell that many of them are illegal

by the lack of proper signs and the number of hoop houses

that exceed the legal limits. But it's the unforeseen

consequences--the damage to the environment, not to mention a

general fear for her safety--that most troubles her. ``I and

my husband both voted for cannabis legalization. I'm liberal,

[an] old hippie type. I don't want people to go to jail for

smoking pot or dealing a little weed.'' Rensenbrink said.

``But I regret it. At this point, I really regret it. People

have grown marijuana illegally in southern Oregon for at

least half a century. It was easy to conceal illicit activity

in private woods and national forests when the nearest human

could easily be a few miles away. But there's nothing hidden

about what's going on now. The Red Mountain Golf Course, a

24-acre plot of land just outside Grants Pass, the county

seat, sold for just over half a million dollars in June 2021.

Three months later, Josephine County Sheriffs and Oregon

State Troopers raided the former golf course and seized more

than 4,000 marijuana plants and arrested two people on

charges of felony marijuana manufacture. It wasn't an

isolated incident. Around the same time, law enforcement

seized 380 pounds of processed marijuana stuffed in a car

abandoned at the scene of a crash. Cops also seized 7,600

marijuana and hemp plants, 5,000 pounds of processed

marijuana and $210,000 in cash from two grow operations just

outside Cave Junction. Two men were arrested and held for

unlawful manufacture of a marijuana item and other

charges. While these eyepopping figures draw headlines,

the raids are just a cost of doing business for the

cartels, according to law enforcement officials. Many buy

or lease six or seven properties, knowing that some might

get shut down by the police. Like any smart entrepreneurs,

the cartels budget for those losses. ``They know that the

resources for law enforcement and our ability to combat

this issue [are such that] they can overwhelm us,'' Daniel

said. The proliferation of unlicensed cannabis farms is

scaring local residents and scarring the landscape.

Personal wells have run dry and rivers have been illegally

diverted. Piles of trash litter abandoned grow sites.

Locals report having knives pulled on them, and growers

showing up on their porches with guns to make demands

about local water use. Multiple women say they've been

followed long distances by strange vehicles. Locals

regularly end conversations with an ominous warning: ``Be

careful.'' Debbie, who retired from the Napa County

Sheriff's Department in California, has little faith in

Josephine County's law enforcement. Debbie, who requested

her last name not be used for fear of reprisal from the

drug dealers, says that officers didn't show up when ten

gun shots whizzed past her husband's head while he was

sitting on the porch, or when the neighbor's pit bulls

chased her from the mailbox back up to her own home. When

Debbie reported her neighbors to the sheriff's department,

they asked her to photograph the license plates of the

growers next door, but she was spotted taking pictures.

``[The growers] stalked me and chased me all the way down

Placer Road,'' she said.

The problem has gotten so bad that residents and local

officials have called for the Oregon National Guard to be

called in. Democratic Gov. Kate Brown hasn't taken that step

yet, but in December she called a special session in which

lawmakers approved $25 million to address Oregon's illicit

grows. $20 million of that funding is designated for law

enforcement to increase staff and resources, while $5 million

is dedicated for oversight of water use and water theft.

Earlier in the year, the legislature passed a bill, sponsored

by Republican state Rep. Lily Morgan, that increased

penalties for growing cannabis illegally and gave state

regulators the authority to investigate hemp growers. Jackson

County Sheriff Nate Sickler says the tougher rules for hemp

cultivation and the money lawmakers funneled to local

enforcement efforts are an excellent start.

``If we're able to get our positions funded, I really think

we can make a significant impact [on] illegal marijuana,''

said Sickler. ``Are they going to go away? It's probably

never going to happen.'' The illicit market isn't just a law

enforcement problem, however; it's actually having an effect

on the environmental health of the region.

Chris Hall has spent months surveilling cannabis farms in

Josephine County's Illinois River Valley from the air. The

community organizer with the Illinois Valley Soil & Water

Conservation District is compiling a map of illicit grows

checked against state licensing information.

On a weekday afternoon in November, Hall explored the

debris-filled Q Bar X Ranch site, taking photographs for his

records. In August, it took about 250 law enforcement

officers--called in from state and federal agencies--to raid

the ranch. Officials seized 200,000 marijuana plants and

found more than 130 workers at the site, according to the

Josephine County Sheriff's department. At the main site, a

new fence with ``no trespassing'' signs warned off curious

visitors.

Behind that fence were the ruins of a massive cannabis

operation: multiple white hoop houses, now in tatters;

ramshackle buildings where workers likely lived; PVC pipes,

tarps, buckets, and empty containers of fertilizer and

pesticides.

Down the road, the second site was in an even greater state

of disarray. Huge gashes had been cut into the earth, and a

crevice was filled with bottles of fertilizer and pesticides.

The banks of a stream were laden with what seemed like the

contents of an entire convenience store snack and soda

section. ``You want to talk about clusterf---, here it is,''

Hall said, shaking his head as he saw that the creek

bisecting the grow site was lined with plastic. ``The [creek]

bed is the most sensitive natural habitat that we have,''

Hall said. ``To line it with plastic, particularly black

plastic, is to kill everything underneath it.'' Hall was

hired because the soil and water district was inundated

with complaints from local residents about the negative

impacts on their water sources. The $5 million that

Morgan's bill recently allocated for water-resource issues

is meant to address this problem.

Reclaiming land and waterways after illicit growing occurs,

though, is an expensive and complex undertaking. A U.S. House

member proposed allocating $25 million in last year's federal

budget for shuttering and reclaiming grow sites on national

forest land, though it was removed from the final bill. Even

if that funding eventually gets approved, it could only be

used to target a small sliver of the illicit grows in

Josephine and Jackson counties, since most are on private

property.

``If this was going on [closer to Eugene or Portland], you

better believe the state of Oregon would stomp this out in a

hot second,'' Hall said--but added that many of the region's

residents are famously resistant to government intervention,

especially from the state capitol four hours north. ``You

know, sometimes you get what you asked for. . . . [Southern

Oregonians] have been telling [the state government] to leave

you alone, so we're gonna just leave you alone.''

There are as many suggested solutions to southern Oregon's

weed problem as there are factors creating it. Some say

tweaks to federal and state hemp regulations--and more money

for law enforcement--will get the illicit grows under

control. Others argue that only federal decriminalization

will solve the problem, because it would reduce the market

for illicit weed.

Anti-legalization advocates, meanwhile, point to Oregon's

woes as proof that legalization doesn't live up to its

promise of eliminating the illicit market.

``Legalization exacerbates the issue of illicit growing

operations because it increases the demand for the product,''

Kevin Sabet told POLITICO. ``With more users emerging

throughout the state, more sellers--both legal and illegal--

begin working to match the supply. The state has done little

to curb demand because it has little incentive to do so.''

On the last point, John Hudak of the Brookings Institute

says that the rampant illicit operations in Oregon aren't

likely to be replicated in more densely-populated states like

Connecticut or Rhode Island. ``I don't think there's a direct

connection between legalization and this situation

happening,'' said Hudak, an expert on cannabis policy who

also volunteers as part of the Coalition for Cannabis Policy,

Education, and Regulation--a think tank funded in part by

Molson Coors and Constellation Brands (which owns Corona).

Constellation Brands has already entered the cannabis

beverage market. ``There's sort of geographic aspects to why

it thrives in certain states,'' Hudak added. ``This is more

likely to happen on a large scale in larger states with rural

spaces than it would be in smaller, urban states.'' Instead,

Hudak argues that the illicit market will continue to thrive

in legal states as long as cannabis remains federally

illegal. It isn't clear when full legalization could happen,

though--if ever. A federal decriminalization bill proposed in

2021 by Wyden, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen.

Cory Booker (D-NJ) has only been seen by the general public

in draft form, and it isn't clear when it will be formally

introduced in Congress. The draft version of that

decriminalization bill would levy high taxes against the

cannabis industry, which Whitney, the economist, argues would

push prices higher and give illicit growers continued market

access.

Cautionary tales like Oregon's won't move the federal

needle, either, Hudak cautions. The lawmakers who understand

the impact of the federal-state cannabis policy gap, he says,

are the ones who already support legalization. Moreover,

there have already been many other stories about the problems

created by the policy gap--such as the impact siloed markets

have on the environment or the inability of cannabis farmers

and store owners to get reliable insurance to cover looters

or forest fires--and federal policy has remained the same.

The problem, cannabis advocates say, is not that

legalization has failed. Rather it's that the country hasn't

legalized enough. Until many more states--and the federal

government--decide to legalize cannabis, those advocates say,

the illicit weed problem is going to continue, even in legal

states. The patchwork of still-illegal states--including some

of the country's most populous--creates tootempting a

market for illicit growers.

``We don't have a [moonshine] business in the country . . .

that is challenging Budweiser or Grey Goose,'' Hudak said.

``Alcohol is widespread legal. And until we get on that same

page with cannabis, this is going to be a continuing

problem.''

The OLCC's Marks, though, argues that blanket legalization

won't solve all of the problems because hemp and marijuana

will still be regulated separately at the federal level--hemp

through the Department of Agriculture and marijuana through

the FDA or the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

``Frankly, the federal government has plenty of

responsibility and accountability for the regulation of legal

hemp and THC,'' Marks said. ``Making regulators bifurcate the

plan under an old federal definition of marijuana and a newer

one of hemp is creating unaccountability, craziness and a bad

market.'' Oregon tweaked its hemp rules this year to make THC

testing more enforceable. Meanwhile, the 2023 farm bill is up

for discussion in Washington, D.C. this year, but there has

not been much chatter on Capitol Hill about making hemp

oversight more stringent.

Economist Beau Whitney argues that focusing on hemp

regulations is a misplaced solution because many cartels

don't bother to hide behind hemp licenses.

``They're focusing in on small hemp farmers instead of the

real problem, which is international cartels,'' Whitney said.

``Until there's some way in which to have a coordinated

enforcement against the illicit cartels, this is going to

perpetuate.''

While experts and lawmakers in Salem and Washington, D.C.

go back and forth over the solutions, southern Oregonians

will continue to live with the impact of divergent cannabis

laws. ``The people in Salem and the people in Grants Pass

don't understand that we're living under this intimidation,''

Gary Longnecker said, talking about the Oregon state capital

and his county's seat of government. ``To sit here and be

ignored by the people who are supposed to represent you, not

even get a staff member to call you back, is so, so

frustrating,'' he said. He's glad that Oregon's legislature

adopted tougher rules for hemp growers, but doesn't think

it's nearly enough to solve the problem. ``You can't just

keep throwing a little bit of money out [here], because . . .

it's like whack a mole. Take this one out, and four more pop

up over here.''

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely essential that any bill legalizing marijuana include significant funding for law enforcement which will be absolutely and predictably necessary to control the cartels that will flood into the farming areas such as southern Oregon.

Simply setting up a penalty, as this bill does, for failing to register will not work without the concurrent means of enforcement. Do not let the defunding-the-police thinking that currently is in this bill lead the Nation into the same ecological human and social disaster we now face in Oregon.

The bill fails to address impairment. It fails to address the ever- increasing potency of the drug. It fails to address the age at which marijuana could be legally used.

It fails to address the impact the bill's 5 percent and quickly rising to 8 percent gross receipts tax, when added to the State and local taxes, will have in driving the black market sources of marijuana. The Federal tax, when added in, will make legal marijuana almost 30 percent more expensive than that which is on the black market.

The bill fails to correctly clarify the differences between marijuana and hemp. This is essential if the hemp market is to be protected from the policies and regulations associated with marijuana.

This bill is the wrong approach.

We should be addressing the crises created by the Biden administration, not passing an incomplete, inadequate, and damaging to our children and communities stimulus marijuana bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention that I have read the bill very carefully, and there is nothing in the bill allocating money to law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention that there is about $400 million that would have been raised last year under this bill had this tax been in place, and none of that money goes to public safety. It goes to rebuild community space but not public safety.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In response to this bill helping farmers, I just want to say it does not. What it does is it puts a tax on top of their product. When added to the Oregon tax, it would be almost 30 percent. That does not encourage farmers to raise the crop because they can't compete against the black market. There has to be far more thought given to what will be an 8 percent additional cost.

By the way, it is a gross receipts tax. It is on top of the gross receipts, not that net profit that you are supposed to get.

Secondly, the bill, as written, fails to distinguish between hemp and marijuana. This must be done if the folks in each space are going to grow properly.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that it was noted that we never asked the people if they would support legalization of marijuana. That is not correct. North Dakota Measure 3 failed. Missouri Proposition C to legalize marijuana failed. Ohio Issue 3 failed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, to my friend and former law school classmate, Representative Blumenauer--he was a few years ahead of me--I just want to draw attention to the bill, page 15, where it calls out the expenditures. It says: The amounts in the trust fund shall be available, without further appropriation, only as follows. And then it reflects section 3052(a) part 00 of the Omnibus Crime Control Safe Streets Act of 1968, which I dug out and read through three times, looking unsuccessfully for an allocation of money to local law enforcement agencies, such as the ones in southern Oregon. It is not there. That money is going for very limited and very narrow purposes.

How much money? Well, if this 8 percent tax had been applied to the amount of marijuana sold last year in the United States, the total is $400 million. That is not the total sold; it is the total tax, $400 million, half of which would go to this narrow piece of work. I am not saying it is unimportant, but narrow.

There is 50 percent called out here, then 10 percent, then 25 percent, but none to police. What I am trying to say is, yes, you have taken this up--do it right. Get it right. And you have a whole bunch of work that needs to be done to get this bill right.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say again, I went down to southern Oregon and I asked the law enforcement folks what we needed to do to try to head off the cartels which are generating this huge sum of money for themselves. What could we do? And the answer was, law enforcement. If you don't have force, you can't control the cartels.

To get law enforcement it requires people and that requires money and this bill doesn't allocate any for that purpose. Since we know this bill is going to drive up the cost of legal marijuana, thus driving more people into the black market, why isn't there more money for law enforcement? Why isn't there any money for law enforcement?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to assure everyone that the police in Oregon are not chasing those who are using marijuana. Oregon legalized marijuana. What we are having trouble with are the consequences of that legalization. That is what I am trying to bring to the attention of folks today that if we are going to legalize on a national scale then, for goodness' sake, don't make the mistakes we made in Oregon, get it right.

Put into the bill appropriate funding for law enforcement. By the way, we should put in a lot of other things that I previously mentioned. One of the things that absolutely has to be there is funding for local police because this bill is going to drive up the demand for marijuana and up the cartels across the United States. It is bad and local law enforcement can't take care of it.

The assertion that the FBI and Homeland Security and DEA are going to do so is incorrect. I know because I have asked. We have nothing from the Attorney General helping us in that space. So what I am saying is, if you are going to do this, get it right.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention in response to the assertion that once this bill passes, if it does, that suddenly the cartels will disappear. Sadly, that is not going to be true. That is because legal marijuana will be 30 percent more expensive than that which is raised on the black market. That is why one has to be aware when one puts this kind of additional cost into this bill, 8 percent on a gross basis, that people need to understand the difference between net profit and gross.

What is going to happen is the cartels will have a 30 percent benefit advantage over privately raised marijuana. What I am trying to say is: Get this bill right. This isn't my thinking. This is people who looked into this extremely carefully and those that are trying to do this legally. I am saying this bill is incorrectly crafted on that level and many others.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list of multiple items:

First, a policy statement from the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry on Marijuana Legalization.

Second, Facts for Families from the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry on Marijuana and Teens.

Third, the Insurance Information Institute report on marijuana and impaired driving.

Fourth, an article from verywellhealth.com titled, ``Is Marijuana Addictive?'' by Ashley Olivine, Ph.D.

Fifth, an NBC News article titled, ``Legalized marijuana linked to a sharp rise in car crashes.''

Sixth, the Denver Post article titled, ``Are you high? The science of testing for marijuana impairment is hazy, and evolving.''

Seventh, a Bloomberg article titled, ``U.S. Grapples With How to Gauge Just How High Cannabis Users Are.''

[From the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry]

Marijuana Legalization

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

(AACAP) advocates for careful consideration of potential

immediate and downstream effects of marijuana policy changes

on children and adolescents. Marijuana legalization, even if

restricted to adults, may be associated with (a) decreased

adolescent perception of marijuana's harmful effects, (b)

increased marijuana use among parents and caretakers, and (c)

increased adolescent access to marijuana, all of which

reliably predict increased rates of adolescent marijuana use

and associated problems. Marijuana use during pregnancy,

occurring at increasing rates, raises additional concerns

regarding future infant, child, and adolescent development.

AACAP is aware that, among hundreds of chemical

constituents, marijuana contains select individual compounds

that, if safely administered in reliable doses, may

potentially convey therapeutic effects for specific

conditions in specific populations. Advocacy regarding

potential cannabinoid therapeutics, alongside social justice,

public policy, and economic concerns, have contributed to

marijuana policy changes. Amid these factors, AACAP remains

focused on concerns regarding adolescent marijuana use.

Adolescents are especially vulnerable to marijuana's many

known adverse effects. One in six adolescent marijuana users

develops cannabis use disorder, a well characterized syndrome

involving tolerance, withdrawal, and continued use despite

significant associated impairments. Selective breeding has

increased marijuana's addictive potency and potential harm to

adolescents. Heavy use during adolescence is associated with

increased incidence and worsened course of psychotic, mood,

anxiety, and substance use disorders. Furthermore,

marijuana's deleterious effects on adolescent cognition,

behavior, and brain development may have immediate and long-

term implications, including increased risk of motor vehicle

accidents, sexual victimization, academic failure, lasting

decline in intelligence measures, psychopathology, addiction,

and psychosocial and occupational impairment.

Marijuana-related policy changes, including legalization,

may have significant unintended consequences for children and

adolescents. AACAP supports (a) initiatives to increase

awareness of marijuana's harmful effects on adolescents, (b)

improved access to evidence-based treatment for adolescents

with marijuana-related problems, and (c) careful monitoring

of the effects of marijuana-related policy changes on child

and adolescent mental health. Finally, AACAP strongly

advocates for the involvement of

the medical and research community in these critical and

highly impactful policy-related discussions.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, as I mentioned previously, fails to appropriately fund the police in all the States that will be facing the challenges that we face in Oregon.

This is not a question of money. The bill, as drawn, will be raising literally billions of dollars at 8 percent tax over the next how many years--billions. Somehow, some of that money has to make its way into law enforcement.

Without law enforcement, Mr. Speaker, you will see situations like we have in southern Oregon replicated across the Nation, regardless of the optimistic thought that somehow the cartels no longer have the monopoly and, therefore, will go away. That is not going to be the case as long as there is a higher price. In many cases, it is going to be a much higher price for legally produced marijuana.

The bill fails to address impairment. My friends, many of them in the law enforcement space, including my brother, a former county sheriff, have said this is a huge problem where we don't know when people are driving impaired. Studies are ongoing.

Why are we broadening this problem when we don't know how to charge those who are driving under the influence?

Of course, as we have heard, it fails to address the ever-increasing potency of the drug. It fails to address the age at which marijuana can be legally used.

What is that about? We know this drug adversely affects particularly young men's brain development all the

way up to age 26, yet this bill says nothing about it.

It fails to address the differences between marijuana and hemp. Some would say, well, that is such a small issue. It is a huge issue. It is a huge issue, and it needs to be addressed.

This bill is the proper vehicle to address these issues. I see that there are some amendments being brought which perhaps will at least go partially in that direction. But the bill itself and the legalization are premature, given the nature of those amendments.

This is an untimely and incomplete bill. Its greatest failure is in not recognizing and addressing the damage the drug will do to our kids and our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment would authorize $10 million to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to conduct a study on how certain technologies can help law enforcement officers detect whether a driver is impaired by marijuana.

Impaired driving is a serious issue that takes thousands of lives every year. Unfortunately, the Democrats only want to address this problem after they create it. Legalizing marijuana will undoubtedly lead to more drivers being impaired by marijuana.

Democrats want to legalize marijuana and then provide law enforcement with a study on how they might be able to detect drivers impaired by

marijuana. Why wouldn't we start with giving law enforcement the resources they need?

This doesn't make any sense, and the lack of support for law enforcement from Democrats in this bill shouldn't surprise us. Nowhere in this bill is there any funding for law enforcement related to marijuana. Let's fix the existing problems before making more.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the proposed amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment is a great example of how Democrats legislate: Make a bunch of drastic changes and then consider the consequences.

The amendment calls for two studies to be conducted, after the enactment of the bill, to evaluate how State legislation on marijuana has impacted those States.

The first study will be conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on the impact of State legalization of recreational marijuana on the workplace. The second study will be conducted by the Department of Education on the impact of legalization to schools and school-aged children.

The amendment also requires the Department of Education to develop best practices for educators and administrators to protect children from negative impacts.

This amendment recognizes the fact that the majority is blindly leading us down the path of marijuana legalization. The information to be provided by these studies would better serve this body and the children of America if we had it before legalization.

Last year, the percentage of American employees testing positive for drugs hit a two-decade high. This jump was driven by an increase in positive marijuana tests.

This amendment is merely window dressing on a bad and incomplete bill. Rather than tackle the actual problem of marijuana abuse at the workplace, which could have disastrous consequences, Democrats simply want to study the issue.

This amendment is a tacit admission that they know this bill is flawed, and it is a ploy by the majority to say they addressed one of the flaws.

I fear the information that the studies will reveal may come too late for many if this bill were to become law.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that I agree there has to be the proper determination of when you are impaired after you have used marijuana. I made that argument in my discussion of the bill.

The issue is one of timing. It is not just impairment. There are many other things in the bill that need to be addressed that aren't.

In this rush to legalize, what we have is a lot of assuming, as was just suggested, that everybody is already using it, so why bother? Well, a lot of people are. But after it becomes federally legalized, more will be using it. Thus, the danger level will increase.

We can't sit here and say there are no consequences of legalization. By that, I mean the same number of people using it. The questions become: When are we going to do this? Why wasn't it done earlier? Why wasn't it done yet? One of the reasons is that it is really hard to make this determination.

What I am saying is, it is a matter of timing. But it is not just this issue; there are many others.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is April Fools' Day, so maybe this is a joke.

This amendment would require Federal agencies to review every decision to rescind or deny a security clearance since 1971 to determine if it was based on marijuana usage. Then, the agency would have to track down every person who was denied a clearance due to marijuana use. The agency would then let them know that the decision will be reassessed unless the person objects.

This is crazy. It creates a huge burden on Federal agencies for what? Even if this bill were to become law, the denial of these security clearances was based on a person's willful violation of a law at the time.

When agencies are assessing whether these people should have access to national security sensitive information, the consideration isn't whether the person uses marijuana. It is whether the person is willing to undermine the rule of law.

If they can't follow this Nation's laws, then we can't expect them to follow the processes to protect our most sensitive information.

Further, this amendment reaches back more than 50 years. How many of these people still need, want, or are even eligible for security clearances?

No one gets a security clearance just because you want one. You can't just walk up off the street and apply for it. You need to be employed with the Federal Government or a government contractor, and your employer must need you to have access to the information.

Very few people who were denied a security clearance in 1980 are still employed in or even qualify for positions that would require security clearances. Some of the people we are talking about may be retirees in their eighties or nineties. Many of them may have representative payees who are their children or grandchildren. Why would we want to expose the fact that their father, mother, grandfather, or grandmother was a marijuana abuser?

The gentleman from Maryland wants the Federal Government to re-create the security clearance backlog that the Trump administration just cleared up for unneeded reviews and to resurface private information. This amendment makes little sense.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just point out that I didn't concede anything that I recognize. If you thought I did, please rethink it.

I want to point out that the security clearance isn't just for Federal employees. It is for private contractors and people seeking security clearances. All I am saying is, one can refer to our ``bureaucrats'' as though they don't have other things to do. They do lots of very important things. I would suggest this falls pretty low on that list.

It is an interesting amendment, but I urge opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered.

Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.