Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the hard work of the committee to make sure that our veterans are properly cared for. They deserve our best. Too many are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with obvious wounds--missing limbs. But over 2.3 million are returning suffering from wounds that are not visible. They are suffering from depression and PTSD. That is why we lose 22 veterans per day who take their lives, long since outnumbering the battlefield deaths. They deserve our best. Over 100 million people reside in the 21 States, including your home State of California, which was the first to legalize medical marijuana. Twenty-one States and the District of Columbia passed laws that provide for legal access to medical marijuana. As a result, as I say, over 1 million people now have access to it, including many of our veterans who use medical marijuana at the recommendation of their physician to treat conditions ranging from seizures, glaucoma, anxiety, chronic pain, and the symptoms associated with chemotherapy. There are also nine States, including my home State of Oregon, that now allow physicians to recommend medical marijuana for the symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. I have heard those stories myself. I will enter into the Record one story that was in the NBC News on April 1 about marine veteran Logan Edwards, who describes how access to medical marijuana may have saved his life. `Out of Options': Veterans With PTSD Hit Pot Underground (By Bill Briggs) [From NBC News, Apr. 1, 2014] Marine veteran Logan Edwards worried he could become one of the 22 former members of the armed services who, on average, commit suicide every day. Then, he says, he tried marijuana. Edwards, who served eight months in Iraq, is one of an unknown number of veterans who have turned to marijuana to manage Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which may afflict as much as 20 percent of veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to experts. The Department of Veterans Affairs doesn't let its doctors prescribe weed, so the former service members buy it illegally, fib to their doctors, accept it as a gift, or grow it themselves. In Edwards' case, he says the drug may have saved his life. ``The first time I used it, I wanted to cry. Because it took away my anxiety. Because it did everything for me that the Oxycontin, benzodiazepines and anti-depressants the VA prescribed me for three years did not do,'' said Edwards, 26, a resident of Davenport, Iowa. His symptoms--an unrelenting ``hyper-vigilance,'' insomnia and nightmares--emerged ``the moment we walked off the plane'' in 2008. ``I can function completely fine all day just by using cannabis. I'm back in school. My attendance is good. My grades are good. My relationships have healed,'' added the former Marine. ``It allowed me to get my life back.'' In a March 12 letter, federal health officials approved a long-delayed study to explore if pot relieves PTSD. But doctors employed by the VA are banned from prescribing medical marijuana--and from completing forms that allow veterans to enroll in medical-marijuana programs. While medical weed is legal in 20 states, only eight states recognize PTSD as a qualifying condition for which physicians can write cannabis prescriptions. ``. . .Due to the way the federal government and the state want to handle this medical marijuana issue, I still am forced to spend time away from family, treating these wounds of war.'' Across that tangled post-war legal landscape, thousands of combat veterans are tapping underground sources to buy bootleg marijuana to self-treat PTSD. And in 12 states where the drug is legal but prohibited for PTSD, many are lying to doctors that they need medical weed for allowable conditions like chronic pain, advocates assert. Meantime, vast numbers of other veterans can't find it, can't afford it, abuse alcohol to self-medicate, or rely on conventional VA drugs. ``My brothers are killing themselves because they're out of options,'' Edwards said. ``These VA pharmaceuticals only exacerbate the problem. The listed side effects on (some) of the bottles say: `Will increase suicidal ideation.' So the suicide rate is really what this comes down to.'' U.S. Army veteran Tom Studley, 28, served as a machine gunner in Iraq for 15-months. He returned to civilian life with chronic back pain and was diagnosed with PTSD. Studley was prescribed numerous pharmaceuticals, but he said that by inhaling marijuana with a vaporizer, he's been able to stop using those drugs. Here, Studley stands in the shed where he grows some of the 15 plants he's legally allowed as a medical marijuana patient in Washington state in Nov. 2011. With marijuana federally classified as a Schedule I controlled substance (like heroin and LSD), VA physicians ``will not provide for use,'' said Gina Jackson, a VA public affairs officer. At the same time, veterans who participate in legal, medical- marijuana programs ``will not be denied access to care for VA clinical programs but should be assessed for misuse, adverse effects, and withdrawal.'' The possibility of federal drug monitoring--plus fears of losing VA benefits and the threat of legal trouble--has driven scores of veterans to secretly use marijuana for decades to address their PTSD symptoms, several veterans said. ``Us veterans have already conducted tests on pot and PTSD--and it works!'' said Vietnam veteran Bob Walker, 69. ``It's nice to see the feds playing catch up.'' PTSD expert Dr. Harry Croft, a San Antonio-based psychiatrist who has treated veterans for combat-related anxiety and substance abuse, applauds the federally approved investigation. ``We owe it to our veterans with this condition,'' Croft said. ``Unfortunately, present treatment options are not helpful to many veterans and, therefore, other newer options should be scientifically explored, including medical marijuana.'' At Walker's home in Northern California, he ingests pot via a vaporizer each night before bed. A Marine veteran grows that marijuana and supplies it free to Walker and a local network of other Vietnam vets. Diagnosed with PTSD, Walker tried VA-prescribed Xanax and anti-depressants but found he could not function on the pharmaceuticals. About 15 years ago, he said, a VA counselor quietly suggested Walker use cannabis to relieve his insomnia, anxiety, stuttering and cold sweats. ``It solved a big problem for me. You feel, well, lighter,'' said Walker, a former Army aircraft mechanic who served in Vietnam in 1965 and 1966, watching his best friend die in a chopper crash. ``Probably 60 to 70 percent of the vets I know use marijuana for stress reduction and sleep. It's their baseline medication.'' ``I'm back in school. My attendance is good. My grades are good. My relationships have healed. It allowed me to get my life back.'' Near Denver, retired Marine and Iraq veteran Sean Azzariti, 32, sees roughly the same rate of pot use among ex-service members with PTSD. He, too, was diagnosed with the disorder. But in Colorado, PTSD is not a qualifying condition under which private doctors can prescribe cannabis to veterans. So, for four years, Azzariti could not tell his physician the real reason he needed cannabis and instead said the prescription would help treat chronic nausea. Simply because of that forced ruse, pro-marijuana advocates ensured Azzarti was the first customer in Colorado to buy legal weed on Jan. 1 when the state began allowing anyone 21 and older to purchase pot. He paid $70 for a strain called Bubba Kush and pot-infused candy truffles. ``If veterans had another avenue (to treat PTSD), most would take that and it would save lives. I wouldn't be talking to you if I didn't have cannabis,'' said Azzariti, who smokes daily to manage his symptoms. ``Veterans have been ignored for 30 years, denied what they truly need to heal. Vietnam veterans could have told us this stuff works. ``That's why I'm open about using it. Sure, there's a chance I'll lose my $120-a-month (VA) disability benefits. But that's a small sacrifice to save one life and potentially change the world,'' Azzariti said. ``With all of these people coming home from war, (the PTSD and veteran-suicide crises) are only going to get worse. How are we going to treat that? We can't just keep throwing pills at people.'' Near Seattle, Iraq veteran Tom Studley, 28, stopped swallowing pharmaceuticals for his PTSD symptoms four years ago and instead, he said, gained inner peace by smoking, vaporizing and eating marijuana. `The anxiety begins to go away pretty quick and stays away for a while,'' said Studley, who served as an Army machine gunner. After returning, he was prescribed muscle relaxants, Percocet and methadone for chronic back pain plus Trazodone, Celexa and hydroxyzine pamoate for sleep and anxiety. On his property, Studley now grows, harvests and uses cannabis from his 15 marijuana plants--a legal crop in Washington State. ``I feel,'' he said, ``less out of control.'' In Iowa, Marine veteran Edwards is taking control--but with a painful plan. In May, he will move to Colorado, away from his girlfriend and 3-year-old daughter. He's relocating and transferring colleges, he said, for one reason: to legally access medical marijuana to continue managing his PTSD. He's tired of breaking the law. ``I thought my deployment days, being away from my family, ended when I got out of the Marine Corps. But due to the way the federal government and the state want to handle this medical marijuana issue, I still am forced to spend time away from family, treating these wounds of war,'' Edwards said. ``I never thought I would have to leave the state and community I grew up in to get access to medicine that's working and is better for me than the FDA-approved stuff. I never thought I would end up being a medical refugee.''

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, any of my colleagues, whether they are in the State that has legalized medical marijuana or not, can find examples of veterans who are benefiting from this treatment, yet the Veterans Administration specifically prohibits its medical providers from completing forms brought by their patients seeking recommendations or opinions regarding a veteran's participation in a legal State marijuana program. The amendment which I am offering today with Representatives Farr, Rohrabacher, and Polis is simple. It ensures that no funds be made available to the VA to implement this prohibition. The amendment would not authorize the possession or use of marijuana at VA facilities. It would simply free up VA providers to recommend medical marijuana or to provide advice upon it in accordance with State laws if they choose. Over 20 percent of those 2.3 million American veterans suffer from PTSD or depression. While there is no single approach to aiding our veterans with PTSD, we should not use an outmoded policy to serve as a roadblock to the path to recovery. We found that there are nearly 1 million veterans who receive opiates to treat chronic painful conditions. More than half of them continue to use it chronically after the treatment regimen. Another study found that the death rate from opiate overdoses among VA patients is twice the national average. In States where patients can legally access medical marijuana for painful conditions as an alternative, we shouldn't tie the hands of that primary provider or prevent our veterans from talking to their primary care physicians. They should not be forced outside the VA system to seek a simple recommendation or to get information about these conditions or eligible conditions granted to them by State law. Our VA physicians should not be denied the ability to offer recommendations and advice that they think meets the needs of their patients. This shouldn't be controversial. According to a poll published in the New England Journal of Medicine, over 70 percent of physicians said they would, when appropriate, recommend the use of medical marijuana to their patients. We all know of people with violent nausea as a result of chemotherapy. Why would you deny that to our veterans or at least being able to discuss it? Physicians who support legalizing medical marijuana nationally have exceeded 70 percent in major national polls. This amendment simply allows veterans to consult with their primary provider, the same right enjoyed by over 100 million Americans today. I urge you to treat our veterans fairly and approve this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I listened to my good friend from Texas. I am troubled here. Why would we force veterans who are entitled to veterans' health and have a primary physician that meets their needs say, sorry, you don't get it in this case, go out on your own nickel, go out and find a new doctor? We are not talking about prescribing it. We are not talking about using it on Federal facilities. We are talking about giving access to information and having that conversation. I dare say there is no other medical condition, if it were polio or cancer, that you would say: nope, go someplace else. Go on your own dime. Find somebody--build a relationship with someone who doesn't know your history, who hasn't seen you regularly. You are out of here. I think that is a disservice to our veterans. I don't think it is anything that--if you talk to veterans' groups, if you talk to the people who benefit from it, that they think that they ought to be denied the ability to consult with their trusted medical provider.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy and the points that she made. I heard my friend, the chair of the committee, talk about it being against the law. I am not aware of any place--and I would direct this to Mr. Culberson--I am not aware of any place in the statutes where it is illegal for our VA doctors to give advice to our veterans about a treatment that is legal in a State. What we are talking about is a prohibition that is a directive, so if there is a statute, I would be interested in knowing about it; but even if it is, what if the advice that the VA doctor wants to give is don't use medical marijuana? They know their patient. Even if it is legal in their State, they think it is not in the best interest of the patient. Your policy would prohibit that doctor from telling that patient: I think it is wrong for you, I don't think it works. What is the wisdom of prohibiting? You are prejudging what the doctor would say. I think the doctor ought to be able to give whatever advice he or she wants to give. I would yield to you, if the gentlelady would permit, where is it illegal under Federal law for a doctor to talk about medical marijuana or any other legal treatment?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Right. Where is it in the Federal law that it is illegal?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Where in Federal law? I haven't been able to find that. Where is it prohibited for a doctor to give advice to a patient for a treatment that is legal in their State, pro or con? Where is that illegal?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Right. Where is that illegal under Federal law?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would like to make the point that the gentleman is wrong. I am happy for him to show us where it is prohibited for a doctor to talk about a legal State treatment. There is no Federal prohibition that we have been able to find because, if I could find it, I would introduce legislation to repeal it. But my point obtained, what if the advice of the doctor is don't use medical marijuana, which is legal, because it is not right for you, I am your primary physician, why would you prohibit that?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate it. It is hard to improve upon your eloquence because you are speaking in favor of Dr. Fleming being able to advise a veteran, if he was back at the VA, to say don't use medical marijuana. This directive would prohibit him from saying to his patient, no, don't do it, and reciting all the facts and figures. Why would we muzzle Dr. Fleming from his professional responsibilities, one way or another, in terms of medical marijuana? The literature is being built. I just visited with dozens of medical professionals who want to do more research, who want to deal with this in a clinical, thoughtful way. We have got stupid Federal policies that prohibit the research. I have met with parents who have children with violent epileptic seizures, and they are moving to States in which they can get medical marijuana, because they can get it. The physicians cannot get medical marijuana to study, but it is making a difference for these families. We just ought not to confuse what we are talking about here. We are talking about VA hospital doctors being able to do something that is not prohibited under Federal law, which is talking about the pros and cons of treatment. That ought to be our objective, and that is why this amendment should be approved.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last night it was my honor to be in the audience as Lincoln High School from Portland, Oregon, won the national Constitution competition. This is a terrific program. The We the People competition has been going on since 1987. It has involved almost 28 million youngsters, nearly 100,000 coaches and teachers, where young people do a deep dive into constitutional underpinnings. I will tell you, these students were no different. I am pleased that this is the third year in a row that Portland, Oregon, has won: Lincoln 2 years ago, Grant High School, Lincoln again this year. These are outstanding young men and women. It has been my privilege to have had an opportunity to work with them during their preparation. I am continually impressed with their insight and their commitment. There is a lot of concern about the state of civic education in the United States today, and rightly so. But these young trailblazers are showing the ability of young people to master the subject, make a commitment, and they are sowing the seeds for productive careers for years to come. I hope some day this Congress will see fit to once again support this civic education program, which we had done until 2 years ago. It is time to reconsider and see if we can be a partner as well.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget flies in the face of the reality of their own budget. It does nothing to deal with the very real, looming crisis of Social Security. They are afraid to inflict their Medicare solution on the seniors that vote today; instead, it will bite long after the people arguing for it will have moved on. It repeals the Affordable Care Act, but keeps the taxes and fees they railed against. But there is nothing sadder than yesterday's Ryan soliloquy on how America cannot afford to invest in its future. Well, we don't think having billionaire hedge fund managers pay the same tax rate as hardworking Americans would be a blow to prosperity. Our budget invests in America's future--in infrastructure, education, innovation--while the Republicans would sentence this rich, great country to perpetual decline. Mercifully, this won't happen. Their budget will not become law. Someday, America will invest in our future again, close tax loopholes, and work together to solve our problems. Our budget shows how.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 786, a bill originally introduced by Representative Markey of Massachusetts, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last week, Attorney General Holder said that he would be happy to work with Congress to reexamine how marijuana is scheduled under Federal statutes. That is a thoughtful effort, but I hope the Attorney General realizes that the time for examination and reexamination has passed. It is now time for him and the administration to act. The jury has returned its verdict on medical marijuana. More than a million patients use it in managing chemotherapy symptoms, chronic pain, PTSD in our soldiers, and epilepsy, particularly in severe epilepsy that afflicts children; 70 percent of Americans think that medical marijuana should be legal, and I honestly believe that, if the other 30 percent had a child who was subject to these severe epileptic seizures or if a loved one had unbearable chronic pain, they would come around as well. Marijuana is currently listed as a schedule I drug. That is the same classification as heroin or as LSD. It is higher than cocaine or methamphetamines. This makes no sense whatsoever. No one dies from a marijuana overdose, and the alleged less dangerous methamphetamines have been ravaging communities, particularly in rural and smalltown America, and people do die, and people do commit violent acts. The Attorney General has called on Congress to act, and in fact, we have. Working in a bipartisan way, we have introduced a variety of bills that do everything from creating a regulatory framework to tax marijuana, to bills to protect State marijuana laws from Federal interference, to legalizing the production of industrial hemp; but the dysfunction of Congress has kept these simple, commonsense bills from passing to this point. What we need is for the Attorney General and those who work for him at the DEA to at least move marijuana off the schedule I or the schedule II of controlled substances. This is something they can do under their own initiative. Relisting or delisting marijuana could make it easier for researchers to gain access to the drug. It will allow marijuana businesses, which are perfectly legal in over 20 States, to deduct their business expenses like all other legal businesses. It could give States more flexibility in dealing with it as a public health issue, and it would reflect what every teenager in America knows--but apparently what the DEA does not know--marijuana is not more dangerous than cocaine and methamphetamines, and to pretend otherwise means that young people and the general public will take the DEA less seriously. I am inviting the Attorney General to visit us here on Capitol Hill, or we will go to his office to go over these points in person with a bipartisan group that has been working on these issues, whose advice and counsel should be helpful to him. However, the easiest path forward for the Attorney General remains the same: take marijuana off the schedule I. A cab ride to Capitol Hill is not going to change that. We hope we can see some action and see it soon.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me time. As I am sitting on the floor listening to the back and forth and the division, I was thinking back to a time when there was consensus in this body on important investments for our future. Indeed, the character of our Nation, our economic vitality, was grounded in the investment the United States made in our ports, our railroads, our highways. The finest infrastructure in the world gave the United States the strength to be victorious in battle in World War I and World War II, to have the economic strength to be able to meet national challenges, and to provide economic security and well-being for our families. Unfortunately, as families struggle, as we have difficulty providing family-wage jobs for American workers, the American infrastructure is no longer the envy of the world, as it was in the past. In fact, all the independent studies show we are not anywhere near the top of the pack. We fall into the lower ranges of the development world. The American Society of Civil Engineers has given our infrastructure a grade of D-plus and suggests we will need to invest over $3 trillion over the next 6 years just to remain economically competitive in the global marketplace. The failure to deal with our infrastructure is going to cost American families in terms of wear and tear on their vehicles over $1,000 a year and millions of hours stuck in traffic in congestion. We are facing a soon-to-be-bankrupt highway trust fund. The clock is ticking. By the end of September, it will run out of money, which means we are seeing cutbacks on Federal contracts this summer, which means some States are having to act now this spring. The decision of Tennessee this last week--it is the 11th State that has announced cutbacks. The Republican budget being debated today ignores this pending crisis, let alone the growing needs of American communities. Their budget would freeze us in decline, a 30 percent reduction over the next decade from already inadequate levels, making it impossible to deal with projects of national significance and severely straining ongoing maintenance of our highway and transit systems. It doesn't have to be this way. A broad and powerful coalition ranging from the AFL-CIO to the Chamber of Congress, the trucking association, AAA, bicyclists, environmentalists, local governments, contractors, businesses large and small have joined with a group of 17 bipartisan governors and the heads of 31 State chambers of commerce to urge that Congress face this funding crisis so that we can have a full 6-year reauthorization so that we can put hundreds of thousands of Americans to work, strengthen the economy, and protect our communities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Instead of wasting more time on a budget that is going nowhere, we should come together to address our failing bridges, roads, and water system. Our future demands it, our constituents expect no less. I strongly urge the rejection of the Republican budget if for no other reason than it freezes us in this decline for infrastructure and look forward to the day when we will work together to solve this problem.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Just so I understand, the majority has consumed 34 minutes?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield myself 2 minutes. I do appreciate the back-and-forth discussion here, but I want to put this in perspective, if I could, because our friends with the Republican budget have assumed, for instance, that we don't necessarily have to raise taxes. We could actually cut some of the loopholes that we have offered repeatedly; and although that is referred to rhetorically, they have never been able to follow through with any that they would cut. There are Medicaid cuts. And make no mistake about it, these Medicaid cuts are actually reductions in nursing home care for America's most vulnerable. That is two-thirds of this money that it is going to be visited back on the States and impacting families. They repeal the Affordable Care Act, but they keep all the associated revenues. We went through a campaign season excoriating Democrats for the reductions in Medicare Advantage, and they keep that in their budget. There is the magic of dynamic scoring, which we have heard about repeatedly for years, which never really quite proves itself. And then we have cuts to Pell grants. We heard described in committee that these cuts to Pell grants are not a problem because they are just an excuse to raise tuition and enrich lavish academic salaries. Mr. Chairman, this Republican budget would not only freeze us into a downward decline in our infrastructure, it would be the lowest level of nonmilitary discretionary spending that we have seen in generations. It is not going to happen; it shouldn't happen; and my Republican friends should not be able to get away with assuming that this is a viable and responsible approach. I hope we will come to the point again where we can find a way to come together to deal with things that we actually agree on in a tangible way and make some real progress. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I understand my friend and colleague from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) was on the floor talking about the disingenuous approach here and the discontinuity between what we are talking about today and what we did yesterday in the Budget Committee. It is an unusual approach to public policy. Where there is a claim that they are, under their budget, if they are able to enact it, going to completely eliminate the Affordable Care Act, but they are going to keep all of the taxes, and they are going to keep the adjustment to the Medicare Advantage Program that was such a focal point in their campaign attacks last year. It was bad when Democrats did it with the Affordable Care Act, but they are going to keep all of those changes. Last week, we had, by a legislative sleight of hand, a short-term fix for the sustainable growth rate. Now, that is the adjustment that is made on an ongoing basis on physician reimbursement under Medicare that has gotten wildly out of whack. It was something that I voted against when it was first enacted. It is an annual charade that goes on here, where we force people in the medical space to come to Washington, D.C., to plead against draconian cuts. We actually had been working in the Ways and Means Committee and the Commerce Committee on a bipartisan approach that would actually solve this problem permanently. Then last week, we had an approach that was advanced on the floor of the House by our friends from the majority side that turned its back on the carefully negotiated bipartisan solution that we were close to being able to move forward and patched together another 1-year extension that was going to continue this abuse of people in the medical space, having the threat of dramatic cuts hanging over them. And what happened? We had a vigorous debate on the floor of the House, where it was pretty clear that this was not going to pass, where we had the medical association and a number of medical professions just opposed to the so-called ``doc fix'' because of the way that it was being done, because of the short-term expedience, because cherry- picking items that were going to make a long-term solution even harder and subject them to that same treatment. It was clear to a number of us that it was very questionable whether that would pass. It looked like there would be enough votes to defeat it on the suspension calendar, which would require two-thirds of us to vote in favor of it and is reserved for noncontroversial issues, but this certainly no longer was noncontroversial. And what happened? The Republican leadership put somebody in the Chair. They went ahead and effectively orchestrated a voice vote that nobody knew was coming. I know that there are Republicans that were outraged about that treatment. And now, what are we looking at today? We are looking at another effort to undermine the Affordable Care Act. We have people talking about problems with changing the definition of ``part-time employment,'' of people having their working conditions changed for something that--excuse me--is not going to be enforced for larger firms until 2016 and for smaller firms until 2017.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. So they are conjuring up a problem here that--maybe people will use it as an excuse for things that they want to do. But nobody is forced to do this at this point. It is not going to take effect for years. Their proposed solution to probably a nonexistent problem is to blow another hole in the budget of over $70 billion. And, oh, this isn't paid for. It was a requirement to pay for the doc fix. But this little maneuver, $70 billion worth, isn't paid for. The hypocrisy and the double-dealing here really frustrates me more than I can explain. If we would be able to deal with things in a straightforward fashion, let people know what they are voting on, and try and solve real problems rather than trying to undermine the Affordable Care Act, we would all be a lot better off.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, throughout American history, the path to prosperity has been infrastructure. It has been paving that path, building that road, constructing the transcontinental railroad, improving water systems, extending electrification to rural America, dams, flood control, and sewer systems. Each and every one of these initiatives were key to improving the quality of life for Americans, enacting business opportunities, and putting millions of Americans to work. They were all public-private partnerships primarily paid for with public investment. Creating these infrastructure marvels, which for most of our history were the envy of the world, put millions of Americans to work. Sadly, that is no longer the case. The United States has fallen behind the global leaders. Our infrastructure is mediocre, according to expert reports. The American Society of Civil Engineers has given our infrastructure a D-plus rating and identified over $3.5 trillion of investments that are going to be necessary just to bring it up to standard by 2020. That is how far we have fallen--a D-plus rating--and needing billions of dollars just to prevent further deterioration and decline. The failure to act carries significant costs in and of itself. There is more wear and tear on vehicles. There is more delays and congestion. There are safety problems associated with inferior infrastructure and poor maintenance. It is going to cost the average American family over $1,000 per year in actual damage and increased operating costs to say nothing of the millions of hours lost to congestion. It hits business especially hard. A 5-minute delay costs UPS $50 million in additional costs each year. Ten years ago, there was a blue ribbon report to then-President Bush about transportation and transportation funding alternatives. It identified over $375 billion as necessary to fund an appropriate 6-year program. That was 10 years ago. We are now spending at a rate, 10 years later, of about $275 billion a year at current levels, but the highway trust fund is only going to produce about $200 billion during that same period of time. Both Chairman Camp in his tax reform proposal and President Obama in his infrastructure proposal identified ways to close this gap to be able to fully fund a 6-year transportation reauthorization that would help meet America's funding needs for projects of national significance that are, in many cases, multistate and are part of a national system. We all depend upon the pieces of the system to be in place in good repair and working together. Sadly, the Republican budget sentences us to decline and then locks in a 30 percent reduction from these current inadequate levels over the next 10 years. It pretends the Federal commitment can be downsized and outsourced. Although I would note, in a letter signed by 31 executives of statewide chambers of commerce, they point out: Even with increased State revenues and innovative mechanisms such as public-private partnerships, there are projects of national significance that cannot be completed without Federal assistance. I will be offering today a proposal in the Budget Committee to at least allow the capacity to respond to these needs, to meet the requests of 17 bipartisan governors, including Republicans from North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania and the 31 State chamber of commerce executives from Alabama, Arizona, and Arkansas, to Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin. We need these Federal partnerships. While this proposal won't commit anybody to a specific path forward, it does provide the capacity to get us unstuck and out of this sad state of decline, in other words, a true path to prosperity, putting millions of people to work, jump-starting the economy, and strengthening communities from coast to coast, so that our families can be safe, healthy, and economically secure.