More Grooming in Oregon

This is Oregon:

This paraprofessional at @ImlayEagles states:
“While some states like Florida have
things like the "don't say gay" bill, my entire school is covered in rainbows
today and I love it.” pic.twitter.com/Rnp1gxhYab

— 👁 Inside The Classroom (@EITC_Official) September 15, 2022

Why do parents put up with this??

BREAKING: Oregon Judge Strikes Down Kate Brown's Executive Lockdown Overreach

Oregon Judge Declares Pandemic Orders Null and Void May 18, 2020 Media Contact: Brad Dacus, 916-616-4126 (Spanish: 206-257-3239) Salem, OR — An Oregon judge ruled today that Gov. Kate Brown’s pandemic-related executive orders exceeded her authority. The case was filed by numerous churches and people of faith who were represented by the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI). The orders resulted in church, business, and school closings and required the citizens in Oregon to remain under virtual house arrest. The Oregon law gives the Governor broad authority in emergency situations; however, that authority is of limited duration. The Governor did not go to the legislature to seek additional time as required by law. Brad Dacus, President of PJI, stated, “We are thrilled with this decision in Oregon and believe it upholds the rule of law by requiring the Governor to comply with clear limitation placed in the statutes.” Attorneys for the Governor are now vowing to appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court. “Pacific Justice Institute is committed to seeing this case all the way through to its final conclusion,” Dacus said.   Ray Hacke, PJI’s Oregon-based staff attorney who argued the case on behalf of churches filing suit, commented, “Even in emergencies, there are limitations on the Governor’s power. The Governor exceeded those limitations and the Court rightly recognized that.” In his opinion Judge Matthew Shirtcliff found that without a restraining order churches will experience irreparable harm to their right to the free exercise of religion. Attorney Kevin Mannix of Salem represented businesses who intervened in the case. Mannix also presented oral arguments to the Court.

Oregon State Employee the First to Receive Return of Forced Union Dues

The Janus decision is just now sinking in for the public sector unions.

They are dragging their feet, but more members are asking for their dues back. Teachers, public safety officers, and other public workers have chosen to leave their unions.

They don't serve their workers, so people are best serving themselves by leaving.

And in Oregon, the first public employee on record broke away from her public sector union and got all her dues back:

Oregon public employee gets first refund of union fees after Janus ruling

An employee at the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has won the first refund of mandatory union fees stemming from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that public employees cannot be required to pay unions dues or fees if they opt out of membership.

Debora Nearman filed a lawsuit in April challenging the mandatory union costs as a condition of her employment at the agency. After the Janus decision was issued June 27, the Service Employees International Union Local 503 moved to settle the case and return more than two years of fees to Nearman, or $2,959.81.

Imagine if every public employee in the Service Employees International Union filed lawsuits against their union. They would go belly up in a matter of weeks!

Nearman, the wife of Oregon Rep. Mike Nearman, R-Independence, said the SEIU actively opposed her husband's election efforts, forming a political action committee and spending some $53,000 to campaign against him, including distributing disparaging fliers.

Not only is that employee in the fish and fame business, but she is married to an elected official, and the union actively opposed her husband's election. Can anyone imagine being in such a situation in which a portion of their paycheck is taken away, and that money attacks their spouse?

Nearman also said she is a devout Catholic and strongly opposes SEIU's position on abortion and its financial support of pro-choice political candidates and legislation. Finally, she said, SEIU takes policy positions that conflict with her political beliefs, including its support of a ballot measure that sought to impose a gross receipts tax on corporations. The SEIU spent millions lobbying in support of Measure 97, which was ultimately defeated.

That's the whole argument. The free rider argument was a false argument, since millions of interests and groups argue for issues that we care about, and none of us pay anything for them to do what they do.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision ended a provision in Oregon and 21 other states that required public employees to pay what's known as "fair share" fees as a condition of their employment, even if they opted out of union membership. The fees are supposed to cover bargaining and contract administration, including handling grievances.

For eight years, the American people listened to President Obama talk about making other people pay their fair share. Now working people are getting their fair share back from the abusive, bullying, yet useless public sector unions which stole the money from working people.

"Nearman's refund represents the first of what should ultimately be hundreds of millions of dollars or even more returned to public employees for union fees seized from them in violation of the First Amendment," Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, said in a news release.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is handling some 200 other cases across the country, including a class-action lawsuit in California by 30,000 state employees, Patrick Semmens, the group's vice president, told the Associated Press.

Wow! A class action lawsuit of this size, and in California, could yield unprecedented dividends not just for frustrated workers, but for the frustrated citizenry which pays more in taxes, and sees less in services rendered from the California state legislature and bureaucracy.

If the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules in favor of the plaintiffs in the California case, they stand to be refunded more than $100 million, Semmens estimated.

WOW! This is huge!

Union advocates say public employees recognize the benefits of union membership and will continue to support them.

SEIU's settlement with Nearman was explicit that the union has not admitting wrongdoing and was settling "for no other reason" than "to avoid the expense and inconvenience of further proceedings."

Keep telling yourself that, SEIU, and watch as they go bankrupt for good.

BREAKING: President Trump Grants Full Pardon to Hammond Family

This is YUGE.

I met with Ammon Bundy in Northern California two months ago. He related to a large crowd of God-fearing conservatives

President Trump pardons Oregon cattle ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond. pic.twitter.com/qJv7MWp88a

— Red Nation Rising (@RedNationRising) July 10, 2018

I had wanted to write about this for the past week, but now I have the time to glory in this latest pardon.

Two down-to-earth farmers in southeastern Oregon were savaged by the federal government for a controlled burn on their property which accidentally slipped onto federal property. The problems go deeper, however, since the feds have unlawfully taken property from farmers throughout the Western United States to create national parks, which in turn cater to well-connected private investors and other interests.

The UK Independent reported:

President Donald Trump has pardoned two ranchers whose arson case sparked the armed occupation of a national wildlife refuge in Oregon.

The takeover was not as sinister as the press makes it out to be. I met Ammon Bundy, who helped the Hammonds take back their lands and fight for their rights against the oppressive, overbearing federal government.

Dwight and Steven Hammond were convicted in 2012 of intentionally and maliciously setting fires on public lands. The arson carried a minimum prison sentence of five years, but a federal judge, on his last day before retirement, gave the father and son much lighter prison terms. Prosecutors later won an appeal and the Hammonds were re-sentenced to serve the mandatory minimum in October 2015.

They did nothing wrong. They should have never been prosecuted. Not only that, but the federal courts violated their Fifth Amendment rights protecting them from double jeopardy.

Congressman Greg Walden lobbied for President Trump to issue them a full pardon, and Trump came through. In fact, two months ago I met with Bundy and his family when he spoke to the Siskiyou County Republican Women Federated and other connected groups. He had spoken with me and a few of the event organizers privately that he was hoping that the President would step up to set the Hammonds free.

So glad that President Trump is responding to the individual concerns of American citizens who want to be free, who want to Make America Constitutional Again.

That decision sparked a protest from Ammon Bundy and dozens of others, who occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near the Hammond ranch in southeastern Oregon from January to mid-February 2016, complaining the Hammonds were victims of federal overreach.

Bundy stood his ground on the private rights of the farmers in the region. They faced incredible odds and unspeakable abuses form the Obama Administration. The previous President viewed himself as impervious to criticism and above the law. Despite this unrelenting arrogance, the United States Supreme Court struck down his executive orders on a routine basis, and then Republicans took back both chambers of Congress for the rest of tenure in office.

The fight to release lands from federal control continues, however, but at least two more farmers have had their liberty restored to them.

Oregonians Stand Against Sanctuary State Collect Signatures for Repeal Effort

Once again, Oregon is ahead of the curve in the fight against illegal immigration compared to California.

In 2014, the Oregon state legislature passed a law permitting illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses. Then the citizens fought back and promoted a referendum to stop it. Their initiative passed by two-thirds, even though 50% of the voters who ended up re-elected uber-leftist Jeff Merkley also voted to repeal drivers licenses for illegal aliens.

This year, 2018, Oregonians are fighting back against illegal immigration once again. This time, they are seeking to repeal the Sanctuary State provisions passed by the state legislature.

Check out this report from VDare.com:

Last Thursday and Friday, July 5th and 6th, the stalwarts of Oregonians for Immigration Reform [OFIR] submitted to their Secretary of State more than 110,000 signatures from registered voters.  Their aim: Qualify for November's ballot an initiative IP 22 that would allow voters to repeal Oregon's statewide sanctuary policy that heavily restricts cooperation between Oregon law enforcement and the federal immigration agencies.  (In late May, I reported on their efforts here.) 

It helps that Oregon is much smaller than California, and the signature threshold is lower.

As the number of signatures required was 88,184, OFIR has likely succeeded in the signature-gathering phase of their herculean task and must now embark on "making the sale" on IP 22 to all of the state's voters.  But the OFIR-ites won't be certain of this first-step success until the Secretary of State has confirmed that enough of the signatures gathered are valid.

The Secretary of State Dennis Richardson is a Republican, which helps. He was elected in contrast to the bigoted Labor Commissioner, who shut down "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" because they wouldn't bake a wedding cake for two lesbians.

Hopefully, the Colorado bakery case ruling handed down earlier this year will help their case against this egregious affront to their individual liberties.

On July 8th, I spoke by phone with OFIR Communications Director (and founding President) Jim Ludwick, whom I have known for several years.  Jim, who is also a veteran of OFIR's triumphant 2013 - 2014 "NO on 88" citizens'-veto campaign to nullify driver's cards for illegal aliens, was most impressed with the urgency many of his late-responding fellow citizens exhibited over getting their signatures in by the July 6th deadline.  "On the steps at the state capitol Friday we had state employees come out to us to sign.  We had truck drivers who were servicing the building sign.  We had state police sign," he said.  "There were people driving 60 miles each way to drop off one-line signature sheets."

"I wish everyone could see how frantic some registered voters were to get their signatures counted so that IP 22 will get on the ballot," Jim added.  "There's a sense that ordinary folks are beginning to grasp what the future will be if we don't push back effectively.  They know this country is at a tipping point.  A lot of these people have been sitting on the sidelines, intimidated about being called 'racist.'  The usual ..."

Sometimes, it has to get that bad so that it can get better.

In California, Don Rosenberg and Ben Bergquam are putting together an initiative process to overturn the Sanctuary State law as well as end drivers licenses for illegal aliens, end the automatic voter-motor law, and require all jurisdictions in California to comply with federal law, including ICE detainers.

Indeed, there was active intimidation that affected how voters' signatures were obtained.  Jim explained that more than 100,000 of the signatures OFIR collected were gathered by volunteers with clipboards or by people downloading single-signature petition forms from the web and mailing them in (or making a last-minute drive to the capitol in Salem!).  Meanwhile, fewer than 10,000 signatures resulted from the work of paid signature-collectors because, Jim explained, the best venue for that activity is metro Portland, "where it became exceedingly nasty to collect signatures, especially for women."

Portland, Oregon is also the site of Rose City Antifa, which has routinely intimidated and threatened conservatives and free speech activists who meet in Portland, Oregon.

It's really sad how bad it's gotten in the largest city in the Beaver State. Left-wing protesters and bigots of all progressive leanings have routinely harassed the police department and the ICE office located in Portland, as well.

This is wrong, and the law enforcement officials in the region are not going to tolerate it any more.

Jim is quite optimistic that the 110,445 signatures OFIR submitted will yield the needed 88,184 valid signatures.  That would require an 80-percent validity rate, well below the 93-percent validity rate OFIR achieved in the signature-gathering stage of 2014's "NO on 88" campaign.  Nevertheless, he and the others in OFIR's battle-tested crew must wait, nervously, to hear from Secretary of State Dennis Richardson.

They will be fine. The residents of Oregon have one ally in Salem.

It's fortunate that they're battle-tested, as Jim expects that "The other side is about to pull out every dirty trick in the book."  The dirty tricks will presumably be the work of "Oregonians united against profiling," an umbrella organization established on July 6th, according to an email forwarded to me.  With their name presumably also announcing their approach, we can expect a campaign of distortion along the lines of that in 2010 associated with Arizona's SB 1070 law of phony "Papers, please!"-hysteria fame.

Of course. Things actually stand better for OFIR, since the Republican candidate stands a better chance of winning against the embattled Kate Brown (who also skipped the Portland gay pride parade this year). Buehler has rejected any bans on firearms, and he opposes the Sanctuary State Law. He should follow the same path that Governor Pete Wilson had done, but this time he should make sure that all initiatives are fully enforced and not give up the fight after one federal court battle.

It's hard to conjure a nexus between racial profiling and anti-sanctuary policies, so "Ouap" already looks like it's grasping at straws—on their "Get the Facts" page, they trot out this indictment of OFIR and of the Federation for American Immigration Reform:

Illegal immigration has nothing at all to do with race. An illegal alien with white skin set fire to massive forestries in Colorado earlier this year. That guy needs to be deported, then imprisoned in his home country.

The groups behind the effort to throw out Oregon’s existing Sanctuary law are Oregonians for Immigration Reform (OFIR) and the Federation of Immigration Reform (FAIR). Both groups have been designated  extremist hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Going to the link they provide lands you on a typical SPLC ["$PLC" here at VDARE.com] point-and-splutter page. 

The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost a massive lawsuit and will have to fork over $3 million to a reform-minded Muslim. More lawsuits are pending against this libelous hate group. FAIR and OFIR have nothing to fear from the "hate card" or the "race card", which sanctuary state proponents will use to full effect.

Meanwhile, assuming the signature-gathering campaign has succeeded, IP 22 will apparently be the only statewide immigration-related ballot measure in the country this fall.  Immigration patriots nationwide can keep tabs on the campaign via OFIR's website and the related Stop Oregon Sanctuaries news page.

Final Reflection

I will do everything I can to help Oregonians end the terrible sanctuary state law in their state. This is a big development, and one most likely to ensure that Republicans have some kind of a chance at regaining power in Salem.

Oregon has seen a massive population boom over the last four years. I have family in the Central Oregon area, and the city has gone from a semi-rural hideaway to a bustling suburban center. Two months ago, I went to Medford Oregon, and the construction developing all over the area is quite impressive. One of the main airports is located in Medford, so that makes a difference, too, but lots o people are moving to Oregon for the lower cost of living and the cheaper housing market.

Will this in-state migration blunt immigration enforcers' efforts to stop sanctuary state? I doubt it, since a fundamental sense of boundaries and fairness governing many people's views on illegal immigration, regardless of their political affiliation.

Flying to Medford Oregon (Photos)

Oregon Man Refuses to Pay Taxes Because of Abortion -- He Beat the Feds!

Here's something in the news from about two weeks ago.

I think more pro-American conservatives should follow this pathway, this process.

Why should we continue to pay taxes to a federal or to state governments which are routinely undermining our rights and refusing to honor their oaths of office to protect the citizenry who pay their taxes?

He refuses to pay taxes because heopposes abortions. He just beat the feds in court

Michael Bowman, a 53-year-old self-employed computer software developer from Columbia City, Oregon, hasn’t paid his federal income taxes since 1999.

He says it’s because his Christian ideals don’t allow him to pay into a system that funds abortions. In a YouTube video explainer [SIC, how about "explanation"?] of his defense, he likened paying taxes that then go toward funding abortions to German citizens under Nazi rule who outed Jewish citizens, sending them to their deaths.

I have heard this argument from others. This is a just form of social protest against the government. Henry David Thoreau refused to pay his poll tax because of his opposition to the Mexican-American war. Californians should stop paying taxes, too, since their tax dollars go to illegal aliens, special interests, and public sector unions, all of which are more interested in stealing from us and enriching themselves. And the public sector workers are not even serving the public!

And according to The Associated Press, he beat the feds in court this week.

To be clear, Bowman won the battle, not the war he’s fighting with the IRS and the Oregon U.S. District Court, when federal Judge Michael W. Mosman dismissed a felony tax evasion charge against Bowman.

This passage proves the level of click-baiting which the media will engage in. How shameful is that? Still, Bowman won a court case against the federal government to hold onto his well-deserved tax dollars.

Mosman ruled that the government’s indictment failed to provide any evidence that Bowman tried to conceal money from or misled the IRS by cashing his paychecks instead of depositing them and keeping a low bank balance so tax collectors couldn’t garnish wages from it to pay what it says are back taxes owed.

“Not everything that makes collection efforts more difficult qualifies as evasion,” Mosman said Wednesday, according to the Oregonian.

More tax evasion needed, then? Or should all of us resort to having as little money as possible in our bank accounts? How many of us feel confident about leaving our money in our homes, locked in a safe or in a can under our beds? Not sure about this approach, but oh well.

According to Bowman’s federal indictment, the self-employed computer software developer owes back taxes on at least $800,000 of income and falsely claimed he was owed several refunds. The feds claim he started using the religious argument for not paying his taxes only after his “’Claim of Right’ tax avoidance scheme failed.”

The taxes and penalties due associated with that income is $356,857.

That indictment came down in February 2017, and Mosman dismissed it without prejudice Wednesday, which means the prosecutors could seek a new indictment to replace it. Bowman still faces four misdemeanor counts of willful failure to file tax returns.

Uh-Oh!

Bowman allegedly also left voicemail messages for the IRS revenue officer assigned to his case in 2013, where he stated that he refused to pay his taxes. He says he’s been up front with authorities all along.

At least he was honest about not wanting to pay his taxes, and why he doesn't want to pay.

When the Oregon Department of Revenue began taking money from Bowman’s bank account in 2012, Bowman began cashing his work checks instead of depositing them, leaving a minimal balance in his account through at least September 2014, according to the Oregonian.

Yes, I guess this is the process which we conscientious-minded activists may have to follow. Someone should forward this to as many people as possible. Perhaps Milton Friedman's dream of "Starving the Beast" can still come true.

“Defendant’s altered bank behavior removed his income from the reach of taxing authorities and allowed him to avoid payment of assessed taxes,” Assistant U.S. Attorneys Donna Brecker Maddux and Rachel K. Sowray wrote in their defense of the felony tax evasion charge.

But Bowman’s lawyer argued that simply cashing checks in his own name did not constitute tax evasion. Mosman agreed.

Of course it does not count as tax evasion! Lots of people cash their checks and take the money to purchase goods are engage in other forms of trade. Civil asset forfeiture has turned into a manifold abuse in part because the feds target farmers--who do their deals in direct cash!

No one would dare call a farmer a tax dodger, would they?

I sure hope not!

Bowman’s defense in the larger scope of his refusal to pay taxes comes from a 1993 law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits government from substantially burdening a person’s religious exercise unless the government demonstrates a compelling government interest and does so through the least restrictive means.

Good argument. Let's build on it!

In April of 2017, though, President Donald Trump signed a law that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except in cases of rape or to save a woman’s life. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that for the years 2014 and 2015, $450 million in government funding was distributed to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions as well as education, contraception and other forms of reproductive care.

I am glad that more people are fighting for life and taking a stand against the federal government's abuse and misuse of taxpayer dollars.

Trump Derangement Syndrome: Oregon Congressman Lies about Tax Reform and More

Update from Congressman Peter DeFazio Here's an update of what I'm working on both in Oregon and in Washington, D.C.:  GOP Tax Bill: The Wrong Priorities Even before the Republican tax bill passed Congress and was signed into law by President Trump in December, House Speaker Paul Ryan began proposing we ransack domestic programs in order to offset the vast amount of debt created by his new tax bill. The programs he and other Republicans want to cut include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and more. These ill-conceived ideas are far from the priorities that the American people want Congress to address. In fact, Americans are strongly opposed to cutting these programs. Instead of the partisan tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy that Speaker Ryan and the Republicans jammed through Congress without a single public hearing, the federal government could pay for programs that provide real jobs and real benefits to Americans. For example, the Republican tax bill costs almost $1.5 trillion to lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. Rather than padding corporate profits and enriching Wall Street even further, this $1.5 trillion could be used to fully fund IDEA – federally-mandated special education for students with disabilities in our public schools – and provide every high school senior in America with up to $25,000 in tuition assistance over the next decade. The Republican tax bill was touted as a way to bring jobs back home to America. In reality, the Republican plan contains loopholes to encourage corporations to move overseas in order to get a lower tax rate, raising the deficit by $207 billion. Rather than increasing our national debt by $207 billion to encourage corporations to move jobs overseas, we could invest $207 billion to improve infrastructure throughout the country, which would create 3 million jobs in America over a decade. These jobs would span construction, design, engineering, high-tech, small businesses, manufacturing, and more. Moreover, the Republican plan reduces taxes for those earning over $500,000 a year, increasing the debt by $130 billion. We could instead utilize this money to create a cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) for Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries that actually reflects cost of living increases for seniors. And, we would still have $40 billion left over to help lower the costs of prescription drugs for all Americans. In addition, the Republican plan borrows $72 billion to give a new tax break to heirs of estates worth at least $11 million (or $22 million for couples). Alternatively, this $72 billion could fully cover the cost of both the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and community health centers (CHCs) over the next decade – items that the Republicans say we as a country just can’t afford any more. Instead of cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other essential programs to provide tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy, we could provide real jobs and real benefits to the American people. You can be sure that I will continue doing everything in my power to protect Oregonians from cuts to critical programs and provide common-sense investments in education, jobs, infrastructure, health care, and more. VA Investigation at Roseburg and Eugene Clinics This past fall, after receiving more than 200 messages from VA Roseburg Healthcare System (VARHS) employees documenting alarming claims of misconduct, mismanagement, and degraded patient care at both the Eugene and Roseburg facilities, I demanded the VA initiate an investigation. As a result, the VA sent a team comprised of officials from the Office of the Medical Inspector (OMI) and the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection (OAWP) to investigate these issues. On January 11, I met with senior leaders from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to receive a preliminary report on their investigations. During the briefing, the VA outlined a number of personnel and statutory changes that have been or will be implemented within the hospital system. While investigations are ongoing on a number of fronts, I pushed the team to provide the final public results and implement reform within weeks, not months. The VARHS has suffered for years from mismanagement resulting in an inability to recruit and retain high-quality providers, which has seriously hindered patient care. This is not the first crisis of management and patient care at VARHS, and previous short-term fixes have only compounded the problem. Oregon’s veterans and VARHS employees deserve lasting, long-term, sustainable change at the VARHS. I have a long history of fighting to ensure that veterans receive the care they deserve. I am pleased that the VA is finally taking these issues seriously, but I remain committed to ensuring that the investigation produces long-term solutions that will allow the VA to provide veterans with the best care possible and recruit and retain high-quality medical providers. Defending Oregon’s Marijuana Laws I was disappointed to see Attorney General Jeff Sessions announce his intent to repeal an Obama-era policy that protects states that have legalized marijuana from federal prosecution. The Attorney General’s announcement is a gross overreach of federal authority that will impair thousands of small businesses in Oregon while doing absolutely nothing to stem the tide of opioid addiction and abuse. I have long advocated for states’ rights to regulate marijuana use for their citizens without federal intervention. Against all logic, marijuana is currently classified at the federal level as a Schedule I drug, the highest possible restriction. These drugs are considered the most dangerous with the highest potential for abuse and no recognized medical benefits. Including marijuana in Schedule I classification means the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) considers it to be just as dangerous as heroin and LSD. This is completely absurd. That’s why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 975, the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act, which would amend the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to prevent federal officials from prosecuting residents who are acting in accordance with their state’s marijuana laws. I have also signed onto a letter in support of the McClintock-Polis Amendment, which would include a provision in any upcoming funding bill that would provide protections from the federal government to states that have medical or recreational marijuana laws on the books.  Meanwhile, Oregon's death rate from opioids has more than quadrupled in the last 10 years. The Oregon Health Authority reported that an average of three Oregonians die per week from prescription opioid overdose. And it’s not just Oregon. According to an estimate by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 52,000 Americans died of drug overdose in 2016, and tens of thousands more died in 2017. Our Justice Department ought to be focusing its resources on the opioid epidemic, not on attacking law-abiding citizens who are acting in accordance with their states’ own regulations. Furthermore, the Attorney General’s announcement is a major blow to thousands of small marijuana-related businesses which are already facing challenges with federal taxation and access to banking services. As a member of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, I have and will continue to work with my colleagues to develop policies and legislation that can help bridge the gap between current federal laws that prohibit marijuana use and the current state laws that have legalized it for medical or recreational purposes. Positive Train Control Technology On December 18, a terrible Amtrak train crash occurred near Dupont, Washington, killing three people and injuring many more. In its investigation of the crash, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reported that the accident could have been prevented by positive train control (PTC) technology, which can automatically stop a train before certain types of accidents occur. In light of this incident, I recently introduced the Positive Train Control Implementation and Financing Act, which would speed up the implementation of life-saving PTC technology that could prevent catastrophic human-caused rail accidents.  Since Congress first passed legislation to mandate PTC implementation in 2008, some railroads have been diligent in implementing PTC while others have clearly been dragging their feet. Two years ago, Congress granted them more time, pushing the PTC implementation deadline to December 31, 2018. As we approach that deadline, many of the railroads do not appear to be on track to meet the PTC mandate. This is unacceptable – there should be no more delays, no more extensions, and no more excuses from railroads who have had ten years to implement PTC technology. My legislation requires that PTC be installed by the end of this year, prevents future deadline extensions of this life-saving technology, and provides critical grants for cash-strapped commuter and intercity passenger railroads to implement PTC. To help passenger railroads meet the deadline, the bill includes just over $2.5 billion in grants for intercity and commuter passenger railroads to implement PTC. Moreover, in response to the recent Amtrak crash in Washington, my legislation would prohibit commuter and intercity passenger railroads from beginning new service on a route unless PTC is fully implemented and operational. It also requires that Amtrak report its progress toward installing PTC on routes that are not owned by Amtrak, but are operated by the railroad, such as the Amtrak Cascades line. As Ranking Member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, you can be sure that I will continue to monitor PTC implementation and fight for improved railroad safety across the country.   Sincerely, Peter DeFazio