Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the campaign rhetoric and politics of the last 7 years now must confront the reality of health care.

No political party can repeal the basic economics. All of the features that make health insurance policies better today--the elimination of lifetime limits on health insurance payments; preventing denial for preexisting conditions; charging women the same premium as men, not more; keeping children on their parents' insurance policies until age 26--are wildly popular, but they all increase the cost of insurance.

We cannot allow people to wait until they are sick to get a policy. That undermines the very concept of insurance, hence, the mandate to have health insurance.

The truth is that the impact of the Affordable Care Act has resulted in healthcare costs rising more slowly than before the act. We have expanded coverage and subsidized care for millions of Americans, while improving the quality of health insurance. All of these reforms are, in fact, working.

A reckless act to repeal something that is now baked into the healthcare system on which millions of Americans rely and benefit from--indeed, the entire system benefits from--would have serious destabilizing effects beyond the loss of coverage for almost 30 million Americans. Republican efforts to weaken Medicaid for the poor and disabled and undermine Medicare for the elderly means that almost 100 million Americans have their health care at risk.

We will begin the battle fighting any effort by the new administration and the suddenly empowered Republican majority to act on their campaign rhetoric abolishing ObamaCare but not providing a replacement. A repeal without a clear alternative replacement at the same time is unacceptable. It is not just unacceptable to Democrats in Congress. It is unacceptable to millions of recently insured Americans--in fact, millions found in red States--unacceptable to healthcare professionals, insurance companies, hospitals, and the vast array of other people involved with the healthcare industry. Most importantly, it is unacceptable to our families.

The most unpopular feature of ObamaCare was the name, suggesting, perhaps, a simple solution. When identified with the President, the Affordable Care Act provisions were 20 percent more unpopular than when the act was described in exactly the same terms but the name was different. So perhaps we just allow the Republicans to abolish ``ObamaCare'' and then get back down to work doing what we should have been doing for the last 7 years: making the Affordable Care Act better.

By all means, let's look for ways to make the system less burdensome. We can continue to demand accountability, but allow some competition with value-based purchasing and negotiation of prescription drug prices by the largest pharmaceutical customer in the world: the Federal Government. Dealing with skyrocketing prescription drug prices and other outrageous practices by some in the pharmaceutical industry will find broad support in and out of Congress.

When the Republican majority and the new administration get serious about a replacement that keeps all of their campaign promises and protects the industry from chaos and consumers from loss of essential coverage, there will be plenty of bipartisan cooperation. But any effort of breaking that fundamental promise by denying coverage and upsetting the healthcare applecart will be met with strong opposition, and, ultimately, they will lose.

For the sake of the American families and the people who provide health care, not only should they lose, they must lose. We must stand strong and united on that proposition.

Mr. Speaker, today, I voted against H.R. 21, a bill that would allow Congress to summarily reject any regulation finalized during the final year of a President's administration.

Current law, under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), already allows Congress to invalidate rules adopted in the final 60 legislative days of an outgoing Administration on a case-by-case basis, preventing agencies from promulgating that rule or any substantially similar rule.

Today's bill, however, would allow Republicans to invalidate important regulations protecting public health, consumer rights, and the environment en bloc, without debating each rule individually or providing the transparency and accountability that would come from a rule-by-rule vote.

This means that rules finalized after the thorough and public process set forth by law--or extended by lawsuits--that agencies must follow are invalidated, even if the underlying problems remain, and with no plan to fix those underlying problems. For instance, rules limiting horse soring or strengthening consumer protections regarding organic food could be blocked under this rule.

The voters elected President Obama to a second, full four-year term. This deeply anti-democratic effort by the Republican majority not only undermines the President, it also leaves Americans and our environment holding the bag. H.R. 21 is perhaps more detrimental than the Senate's refusal to fill the Supreme Court vacancy because this bill would allow Congress to invalidate an entire year of an entire administration's work.

``. . . but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.''

Mr. Speaker, Israel is a special place in a troubled and storied landscape, sacred ground for three of the world's major regions.

Israel's security is important to me and the people I represent. The Jewish homeland is the only democracy in this broader region of continuing conflict. I abhor the terrorist acts. Israel's security merits our support, which is why the Obama administration, with Congress' approval, just awarded an unprecedented amount of military aid over the next 10 years.

But, unfortunately, Israel's future is being threatened by its own actions as well as by its adversaries. For years, reckless settlement expansion has been opposed by the United States and the rest of the world. They are confiscating Palestinian land in a way that is not just contrary to longstanding American policy, but is often illegal under Israeli law.

It looks like the incoming Trump administration is reconsidering 50 years of bipartisan policy, urged on by the extremist views of his proposed Ambassador whose position on settlement expansion is on the fringe of even Israeli politics.

H. Res. 11 sends the wrong signal to the incoming President, to Israeli politicians, and especially to the Israeli people. It drives a wedge between Israel and the majority of Americans, including the majority of Jewish Americans. It weakens that special relationship and furthers the isolation of Israel, in evidence as the resolution was approved unanimously by the other 14 countries. Israel will become more vulnerable and, candidly, it will likely embolden forces that are hostile to the Jewish state.

Instead of this resolution, we should reject the rule and support the resolution I cosponsored with Mr. Price that reaffirms our commitment to the longstanding American policy in support of a two-state solution and to help secure Israel's future as a stable, democratic, peaceful state.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk of cliffs here in our Nation's Capital. We have fiscal cliffs that we faced with the debt ceiling. There was the sequestration cliff. We had, obviously, the cliffs surrounding the government shutdown.

This week, we face a Homeland Security cliff. Because our Republican friends have been unable to reach agreement and have held hostage the budget of the Department of Homeland Security, we face a situation where we will either shut down those operations or, hopefully, people will come to their senses and take action. But, again, it is government by cliff.

In March, we are facing the SGR cliff. If the government doesn't move forward to deal with a meaningful solution to the sustainable growth rate, we are going to see a dramatic reduction in government reimbursement under Medicare to providers.

And looming in the background--something that we talked about last summer because Congress refused to deal meaningfully with transportation funding--there will be another cliff May 31 as the transportation fund loses its ability to fund. Already, there are programs around the country in local and State government that are trying to factor in reductions of important construction work that they aren't certain they can do this summer.

Well, we are putting in the background another cliff. It is one that will probably not get the attention that it deserves, but one that deserves people to focus on because it will impact 11 million of our most vulnerable citizens.

Over the course of the years, there have been opportunities within the trust fund that funds retirement and disability, which are basically, for most people, synonymous--they are paid for by the same tax on our earnings and that our employers pay, but they have been segregated into two accounts, one dealing with disability and one dealing with retirement.

Over the history of these two programs they have spent at different rates. Eleven times in the past, under Republican and Democratic Presidents alike, Congress has moved to shift money from one trust fund to another to be able to even it out and not run out of the ability to pay benefits. The last adjustment was made in 1994, but the disability account was only adjusted for about 20 years.

At the time, it was understood that there would be a need for more action dealing with disability because of a very fundamental demographic change: we have a lot more women in the workforce and the baby boom generation is moving into the years in their careers where they are more prone to disability claims. And, sure enough, that projection is right. Around December of next year, we will no longer be able to pay full disability payments unless there is an adjustment.

Well, the fix that has been done 11 times over the years, on a bipartisan basis, has been made infinitely more difficult because of a rule change that our friends on the Republican side have adopted for this Congress. Under what they have approved, it will be impossible to make that simple adjustment that we have done time and time again if a single Member of the House of Representatives objects.

This is setting up an artificial crisis. There is a need to adjust funding for both Social Security and disability because, combined, in about 2033 or 2034 they will not be able to pay out full benefits. That is why it is important for Congress to be able to step forward and deal with it meaningfully, but it is not something you do in a crisis, and it is not something that should be done by picking out the one area in which 11 million citizens rely on these for disability payments. It should be done thoughtfully and carefully.

If people are concerned about fraud and misuse, I would suggest that my Republican friends look at what they did in the budget process. Over the last 3 years, they have cut 7 percent out of the budget for the Social Security Administration that could have gone to deal with enforcement and that could have gone to deal with fraud and abuse. It could have gone to make sure that the program is operating properly.

Instead, we have set up a crisis to try and force reductions in benefits for

some of our most vulnerable. I think it is not the way we should go. We shouldn't be having government by cliff, but we also ought to be dealing with it in a thoughtful and reasonable fashion to make the adjustments that make it sustainable.

In the meantime, the Republican leadership ought to waive that rule-- like they routinely do for things that they care about, like passing billions of dollars of unfunded tax cuts--to be able to allow the rebalancing to occur and the decisionmaking to be made in a thoughtful and reasonable fashion.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Marijuana Tax Revenue Act of 2015, legislation to create a federal excise tax on marijuana sales and move this industry out of the shadows and into the daylight. Over two-thirds of people live in a state or local jurisdiction that has decided that some aspect of marijuana use should be legally permitted. Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia have passed laws allowing for medical marijuana in some form and five jurisdictions, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska and the District of Columbia legalized the recreational use of small amounts of marijuana.

National trends reflect those state efforts. More than 46 percent of Americans over the age of 18 have tried marijuana at least once and public opinion research reveals nearly half of the U.S. population supports legalization. Yet even as states and local governments have taken the lead in finding legal arrangements for marijuana, the federal government spends billions of dollars per year on incarceration and enforcement associated with federal marijuana laws.

In addition, many marijuana businesses around the country--despite operating in compliance with state or local law--are not allowed to deduct their legitimate business expenses and often are unable to make deposits or maintain accounts as a result of federal banking laws.

It is time for Congress to end the federal prohibition on marijuana, remove it from the Controlled Substances Act, and create a tax and regulatory framework similar to the frameworks in place for alcohol and tobacco. This represents a unique opportunity to save ruined lives, wasted enforcement and prison costs, while simultaneously helping to create a new industry, with new jobs and revenues that will improve the federal budget outlook.

The Marijuana Tax Revenue Act of 2015 phases in an excise tax on the sale of marijuana by a producer (generally the grower) to the next stage of production (generally the processor creating the useable product). This tax is phased in over five years following legalization. It starts at 10% and grows to 25%. The bill requires occupational taxes for those operating marijuana businesses. Those who do not comply with the taxation laws face civil or criminal penalties similar to those in place for the tobacco industry. The bill requires the IRS to produce periodic studies of the industry and make recommendations to Congress. Medical marijuana is exempt from these excise taxes.

As I work with my colleagues and with stakeholders to move forward with this legislation, I emphasize that there remain significant questions and challenges. In particular, in the context of legislation, significant changes will ripple through the marijuana industry, with new products created, new business relationships developed, new consumer standards demanded, and wide variations in state and local laws. As this process evolves, we hope to work with the industry to ensure that the tax rate and framework appropriately reflects federal concerns and the needs of this developing industry. I am committed to ensuring that the legislation's terms are adequately tailored to reflect the realities faced by marijuana businesses and consumers in an ever-shifting market.

It is important to note that states will remain free to make decisions about marijuana policy. Paired with Representative Polis' ``Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol Act'' this legislation establishes a starting point for laying out a federal regulatory and taxation framework for marijuana sales that are legal under state law.

Mr. Speaker, we come today in the midst of a debate at a time when there are wide areas of agreement in this Congress about things that we should do to help improve the country. We all acknowledge the importance of tax reform. Many people in this Chamber, on both sides of the aisle, have a lot of time and energy invested in it. And in the other Chamber, they are establishing working groups to explore the challenges. The administration has set reform proposals in its budget that could be a basis of discussion in moving forward. Our past chairman produced a substantial draft and was, sadly, maligned for, in fact, achieving his objective of a significant reform that was revenue-neutral.

And what we are seeing today is another in a series of bills that have

nothing to do with really achieving that objective. In fact, they run contrary to past reform efforts.

Yesterday in committee, we marked up something that has broad agreement in terms of helping deal with problems of deductibility for sales tax in States that don't have income tax. This was an area that was dealt with by the gentleman from Michigan, then-Chairman Camp, in his reform bill. Our current chairman has called for a different treatment. We understand there are challenges dealing with it. But all of a sudden, we are just moving that forward too, and that is on the conveyor belt that is moving forward.

I think it makes a mockery of the process that it takes to reform the tax process, wherein we have so far already approved over $300 billion that, if approved, would add to the deficit. Now, mercifully, I don't think they are going to be enacted anytime soon, but it sets us back for the long-term objective and confuses what we could be doing.

I find this at stark variation with how we deal with another area that used to be a bipartisan area of consensus, and that is providing funding for infrastructure to rebuild and renew the country.

It was interesting, we have a highway trust fund where the current fix runs out this spring. The highway trust fund will be literally going broke by early June. Some States have already listed the projects they have as suspended or canceled due to this uncertainty. And more will act as it becomes clearer that we are in a pickle, and Congress has not yet moved forward.

Last summer, when Congress struggled to pass the 23rd short-term extension to our transportation program, now-Chairman Ryan said that it is important that we follow ``a House budget rule that requires general fund transfers to the trust fund to be fully offset. It should not become a recurring practice for taxpayers to bail out the highway and transit programs because Congress and the President are unable to make the changes necessary to avoid future trust fund insolvency.''

Kind of a different approach.

Here, we roll through, add to the deficit, make tax reform more complicated, and the Republican-controlled Congress has yet, in the entire 50 months that it has been in charge, to have even a hearing on a proposal that is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL- CIO, truckers, AAA, transit, local government, environmentalists, and mirrors something that Ronald Reagan did 33 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose we have to go through this exercise. And we will do it, and we are going to see that there is kind of a two-track system.

If you are on the conveyor belt for things that they want to move, it will go forward--consequences to the deficit be damned--even if it makes more difficult long-term tax reform and repudiates things that have had bipartisan interest in the past.

In the meantime, things that have broad support, that have profound effects on the economy right now and impact people from coast to coast, lie dormant, and we are manufacturing another crisis.

Oh, and before that, we are going to have an artificial crisis with disability funding because of a switch in the rules for those that don't get this favored treatment.

There is a reason that we have got this gulf in terms of our inability to work together. There is a reason because there is a gap between those income disparities, failing to deal with policies that would narrow them rather than widen them. And I hope that we can get past this today and at some point get back to basics on things that will make us stronger, that can bring us together, and make our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. Speaker, for more than 70 years our government has followed the most spectacular failure in policy since the disastrous 13-year experiment with the prohibition of alcohol.

Forty-three years ago, the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse released a report, finding that the Federal ban on marijuana is unjustified and inappropriate. Yet, for most of that time, Federal policy has been frozen in amber.

Countless lives have been ruined for the use of a substance that a majority of Americans think should be legal; untold billions of dollars have been spent on a failed effort at prohibition; and still 25 million adults use it every month.

Despite a finding in Federal law that marijuana is a schedule I controlled substance with no therapeutic value, 213 million Americans live in 34 States and the District of Columbia where medical marijuana is recognized and legal in some form, and over a million people use it as medicine.

In 1996, voters in California marked a significant change in course when they legalized medical marijuana with a vote of the people, and almost three dozen States have followed. In the fall of 2012, voters in the States of Washington and Colorado approved the adult use of marijuana, and it should be noted that the sky didn't fall, big cracks didn't appear in the Earth, and problems with marijuana didn't get worse. In some instances, they became more manageable.

For the Federal Government, the tide continues to turn. Last session of Congress had six successful votes on the floor of the House to rationalize our foolish policies, including reining in Federal enforcement and opening opportunities for legal industrial hemp cultivation. Last fall, voters in my State of Oregon, looking at the evidence and experience like in Colorado, approved adult use by an even larger margin than in the previous States.

The marijuana reform train has left the station, and it is time for the Federal Government to redouble its efforts on developing policies that work. Congressman Jared Polis and I will reintroduce this week our legislation to establish a Federal framework to end the failed Federal prohibition.

It will pave the way for States to chart their own course to legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana according to what individual States want to do--just like they do with alcohol. We will save tens of billions of dollars on failed enforcement, incarceration, and lost revenue. We will choke off a profit center for drug cartels that has been enriched by our failed policies, and we will make it easier to enforce laws to keep marijuana out of the hands of our children and have money for government services rather than waste money on failed policy, arresting people for something that a majority of Americans now thinks should be legal.

For those of us who have worked in this field for years, it is an exciting time. My legislation will deal with the taxation of marijuana, and we look forward to refining it, to being able to have the tax at a proper level to support government services but also reasonable enough to choke off black market supply.

It is time for us to enter a new era of marijuana policy for research, for protecting our children, for economic development and individual liberties. I strongly urge my colleagues to examine the legislation that we have advanced and be part of this long overdue effort at reform.

Mr. Speaker, the scheduled March 3 invitation by Speaker Boehner to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress is wrong on many levels.

It is a deliberate attempt by the Israeli Prime Minister and the Speaker of the House to undercut an effort at a diplomatic solution to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power. This is calculated to occur at a very sensitive stage in talks to reach a potential agreement to limit Iran's nuclear ambitions. Undercutting that diplomatic option is wrong for the United States. It undermines our efforts to smooth choppy waters at a time when we are deeply concerned with ISIS, Hezbollah, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria. The potential of being able to work with Iran beyond the nuclear weapons issue is important for trying to manage many of the world's most explosive problems.

It is impossible to fully comprehend the next steps if we undercut this diplomatic effort. Why give Iran an excuse to blame the United States for a failure of negotiations and play to their hard-liners, who don't want any agreement that would contain their efforts to build nuclear weapons?

There are no other good alternatives. Some of the people most eager to ultimately use military force against Iran are the same people who were so enthusiastic about going to war with Iraq. The fallout of the war with Iran would likely be as bad or worse at a time of upheaval in this troubled region.

There are other critical issues besides the negotiations with Iran. It is outrageous to think that Israel or any country would use Congress as a prop for their highly contested domestic elections. This proposed speech would be right in the middle of a short and heated Israeli election. It is unseemly and counterproductive. One has only to look at Netanyahu's television commercials from his last election--and how he used his appearance before Congress--to see where this is going.

Finally, there is the issue of respect for the Office of the President and the responsibility to conduct foreign policy. I can't imagine what the reaction would have been if Speaker Nancy Pelosi had offered French President Sarkozy an opportunity to lecture Republicans and George Bush about our disastrous policy in Iraq. Republicans would have been apoplectic.

This is not good for Israel either. It is creating a backlash at home for Netanyahu. It is creating heartburn for some of the strongest supporters of Israel in Congress, and it is straining the relationship between the administration and the Government of Israel. This drama is coming at a time when the majority of Israelis think their country is headed in the wrong direction, when Netanyahu does not have the majority support of his countrymen, when the election is quite close, with a significant number of undecided voters; and polls tell us a majority of Israelis think this speech is a bad idea.

It is unnecessary; it is unfortunate; and it is a bad precedent. Joint sessions involving heads of state and other world leaders should advance American interests and be a positive expression of our values and our opportunities, not a partisan or an ideological device. This proposed speech fails that test. The invitation should be withdrawn or rescheduled, or the Israeli Prime Minister, himself, should reconsider. I, for one, have no intention of being part of dignifying this blatant political act with my presence, because it is not good for Congress; it is not good for Israel; and it is not good for the United States.

Mr. Speaker, today, along with my colleague and co- chair of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus, Mike Fitzpatrick, I am pleased to introduce the Animal Welfare in Agricultural Research Endeavors, or AWARE Act. This bill would ensure that farm animals used in agricultural research at federal research facilities are included in the definition of ``animal'' under the Animal Welfare Act.

A January 20, 2015 front page article in the New York Times, ``U.S. Research Lab Lets Livestock Suffer in Quest for Profit: Animal Welfare at Risk in Experiments for Meat Industry,'' examined horrendous abuses at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center in Clay Center, Nebraska. In the last 30 years, over half a million animals have been housed at the center. The center's experiments have included experiments to increase the number of twin births in cows and expand the litter size of pigs, without consideration of animal health impacts, and trying to breed ``easy care'' lambs that are born in open fields without human assistance--all with horrifying, and often unsuccessful results.

At least 6,500 animals are known to have starved to death at this facility alone. Unknown numbers have died from negligence such as easily treatable infections, exposure to bad weather, or attacks by predators. In just the last 10 years, this single center has cost nearly $200 million with taxpayers footing the bill for this shocking abuse of animals.

Appallingly, these animals are not currently protected under federal law. While the Animal Welfare Act ensures that certain minimum standards of humane care are required for federal and private research facilities, there is an exemption for farm animals ``used or intended for use for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber''--from those basic protections. As a result, federal facilities like the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center don't have to obey the Animal Welfare Act.

This is why we are introducing the AWARE Act, which would close this loophole at federal research facilities. It is time that we step up to stop this horrible misuse of taxpayer funds. There is no reason that USDA agricultural research facilities experimenting on farm animals should not be held to the same standard as federal research facilities that conduct lifesaving disease research with the same kinds of animals.

This is a small step that this Congress can take quickly to show that we respond to animal abuse and that the federal government will lead by example.

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas where Congress has repeatedly come together in a nonpartisan fashion to make real progress has been legislation dealing with the protection of animals. This is something that unites us as we have been able to deal with a series of simple, commonsense steps to assure we meet the standard of care.

That is why it was so horrific to read the terrible front-page article in The New York Times on January 20 about the Federal Meat Animal Research Center in Clay Center, Nebraska. Moving from the front page to two full

pages on the inside were truly grotesque and horrifying examples of animal abuse.

A young cow had its head locked in a cagelike device to keep her immobile while she was repeatedly--you can only describe it as sexually tortured for hours by as many as six bulls being studied for their sexual libido. Her back legs were broken, her body--in the words of one of the observers--was ``torn up,'' and the cow understandably died from her injuries.

There were other experiments detailed, sheep and pigs, without consideration of animal health impact. It detailed horrifying and often unsuccessful results. At least 6,500 animals were known to have starved to death at this facility, and unknown numbers died from negligence from easily treatable infections, exposure to bad weather, or attacks by predators--all of this at a cost of almost $200 million of taxpayer money over the last 10 years, resulting in this grotesque abuse of animals.

There is the ability to abuse, neglect, and even torture farm animals because there is no law that requires their protection. There is a loophole in the Animal Welfare Act which exempts farm animals used for research.

Think about it. If you are abusing, neglecting, or even torturing farm animals for agricultural research, you don't have to obey the Animal Welfare Act. It is absolutely unjustified and outrageous.

This week, Congressman Michael Fitzpatrick--my cochair of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus--and I are introducing the AWARE Act which would require that in Federal facilities, farm animals used in agricultural research be included in the definition of ``animal'' under the Animal Welfare Act.

It seems rather simple. It would ensure that these animals are treated like other warmblooded animals in other Federal research facilities. It is time that we step up to stop this horrific abuse. There is no reason that the USDA agricultural research facilities experimenting on farm animals should not be held to the same standards as Federal research facilities that conduct lifesaving disease research with the same kinds of animals.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this AWARE Act, the Animal Welfare and Agricultural Research Endeavors. It is supported by The Humane Society, the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Humane Legislative Fund, and countless people across the country who deeply believe in animal welfare.

This is our job in Congress, and this is a small step that we can quickly make to show that we respond to animal abuse and that the Federal Government will lead by example.

I would urge my colleagues to join Congressman Fitzpatrick and me as members of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus to work together on behalf of God's creatures who cannot speak for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing two pieces of legislation to address America's growing infrastructure funding crisis and looming transportation cliff. The reason is simple: America is falling apart and falling behind. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) rated our infrastructure as a D+ and America, which once had the finest infrastructure in the world, was ranked 25th, behind Barbados and Oman, in 2013. The funding mechanism for our transportation system has been broken for years, and the Highway Trust Fund will run dry in May. On the eve of peak construction season, the U.S. Department of Transportation will be forced to stop reimbursing states for highway and transit projects. The uncertainty is already causing states and local governments to put off or cancel much-needed maintenance, let alone new investment.

If this sounds familiar, it's because we've been here before. Since the last full six year surface transportation bill expired in 2003, Congress has passed 2 partial authorizations and 23 short-term extensions, most recently in August 2014. The federal gas tax, unchanged since 1993, has locked the Highway Trust Fund in a death spiral, and the search for necessary revenue has derailed a traditionally bipartisan, consensus-driven policy process. Just to maintain current, inadequate transportation funding, Congress has had to borrow more than $65 billion from the general fund since 2008, in an increasingly desperate search for revenue in all corners of the federal budget.

The gas tax, since it was last raised to 18.4 cents a gallon in 1993, has lost nearly 40% of its purchasing power due to inflation and rising fuel efficiency. If the gas tax had been indexed to inflation in 1993, it would be at nearly 30 cents a gallon. Instead, the gas tax is barely higher in real terms than the first federal gas tax, levied at one cent a gallon in 1932. We're trying to fund 21st Century infrastructure with a Depression Era level of investment. It's no surprise that we face Depression Era consequences.

The Highway Trust Fund will run an annual shortfall of more than $15 billion after 2017, and unless Congress acts, we face a drop in transportation funding of 30% over the next ten years. The situation is already dire--rough roads alone cost each driver an average of $324 a year, and the cost of time wasted sitting in traffic will top $1000 per family by 2020. Further, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that our deteriorating infrastructure will restrict our national GDP growth by nearly $900 billion by 2020.

The case for increasing our investment in infrastructure is clear. A recent S&P Ratings report suggests that every $1.3 billion invested in infrastructure would add 29,000 jobs, $2 billion in economic growth, and cut the deficit by $200 million. Two congressionally authorized commissions, the Simpson Bowles deficit reduction plan, and organizations representing business, labor, environmentalists, car advocates and cyclists, all agree on the solution to solve the Highway Trust Fund crisis and increase transportation investment: raise the federal gas tax.

The UPDATE Act, which I introduced today, would increase federal gas and diesel taxes by a nickel a year, phased in over each of the next three years, and index those taxes to inflation. This would generate $210 billion over the next ten years, enough to make up the Highway Trust Fund shortfall and increase infrastructure investment by at least $4 billion a year. It would cost the average driver roughly $70 a year over the next six years, or less than 20% of what every American is already paying in vehicle maintenance, lost travel time, and carbon pollution.

Increasing the gas tax is the only solution to our growing revenue crisis that is dedicated to transportation spending, sustainable for the long term, and is big enough to do the job. For the first time in years, it's also politically possible. World oil prices have fallen nearly 60% since June 2014, and prices at the pump were at a six year low last week. More than 12 states are now considering increasing gas taxes, taking advantage of low prices. 8 states acted to raise gas taxes in the last two years, including Wyoming and New Hampshire. A growing number of Senators from both parties and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi have signaled openness, if not outright support for raising the gas tax.

The UPDATE Act will stabilize the Highway Trust Fund, and make sure that our infrastructure crisis does not worsen. The legislation

also affirms the sense of the Congress that by 2024, the gas tax should be repealed and replaced with a more sustainable funding source. My second piece of legislation, the Road Usage Charge Pilot Program Act, provides research funding for states to explore a transition away from the gas tax to a system based on vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Such a Road Usage Charge system would be more fair, a more accurate reflection of road use, and more sustainable for the long term, as fuel efficiency increases and hybrid and electric vehicles rise in popularity. Questions remain about how best to implement such a system, collect revenue, and address privacy concerns. Congress should encourage states to answer these questions through pilot projects. This legislation, instead of tying America's transportation system to the past, paves the way for the future.

Addressing the infrastructure deficit, stabilizing transportation funding, and helping America's all-too-slow economic recovery is critical if we want a livable and economically prosperous country in the years to come. All we need to make it happen is a commitment to build the future together.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the bipartisan Veterans Equal Access Act along with my colleagues Dana Rohrabacher, Walter Jones, Justin Amash, Tom Reed, Richard Hanna, Dina Titus, Sam Farr and Jared Polis, which will allow Veterans Health Administration physicians to recommend medical marijuana to their patients in states where it is legal.

Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have passed laws that provide for legal access to medical marijuana. As a result, well over one million patients across the country, including many veterans, now use medical marijuana at the recommendation of their physician to treat conditions ranging from seizures, glaucoma, anxiety, chronic pain, and nausea.

There are also nine states and the District of Columbia that now allow physicians to recommend medical marijuana for the symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress (PTS), due to a growing body of anecdotal evidence suggesting that marijuana offers relief when nothing else has.

While outdated federal barriers often prevent the research necessary to develop marijuana into an FDA approved drug, states have heard from their citizens, including veterans suffering from PTS, that marijuana is helping them now, and have adjusted their laws.

Despite this growing state availability of medical marijuana, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prohibits VA medical providers from completing forms brought by their patients seeking recommendations or opinions regarding participation in a state marijuana program.

The Veterans Equal Access Act would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to authorize physicians and other health care workers employed by the VA to provide recommendations and opinions regarding the participation of a veteran in a state medical marijuana program. This includes authorizing them to fill out any forms involved in the process of recommending medical marijuana.

Veterans should not be forced outside of the VA system to seek a treatment that is legal in their state. VA physicians should not be denied the ability to offer a recommendation they think may meet the needs of their patient. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this effort.

Mr. Speaker, this is the week where the President submits his budget. We are seeing a great deal of conversation about many of the provisions. One area that I am pleased has been greeted with positive reaction is his emphasis on infrastructure, on rebuilding and renewing America.

This is a debate that is very important. It is long overdue to focus in on solutions. It is an area of potential agreement: the need to address the fact that America is falling apart while we are falling behind, somewhere on the order of 25th in the world rankings. Where once we had the finest infrastructure in the world, that is no longer the case.

The American Society of Civil Engineers gives us a grade of ``D.'' It is going to cost $2.2 trillion by 2020 to be able to bring us up to standard. The longer we wait, the worse the situation.

It is costing each American $323 a year, on average, in damage to their cars because of inadequate infrastructure, to say nothing of thousands of lives lost because of unsafe road conditions and the potential disruption of business and commerce.

Americans are spending millions of hours a year trapped in traffic. America's highways--which are how we deliver products to stores, to factories--are increasingly congested, causing increased costs due to delay.

The President's proposal is a bit complicated. It deals with other tax provisions that virtually everybody thinks are a long shot, at best, to be enacted.

This is part of the pattern the administration has had in the past: offering up things that, in theory, would make a difference but that are unlikely. Usually they are pronounced dead on arrival. Likewise, the proposals of some of my Republican friends for their approaches, wrapping it into their version of tax reform, have been consistently declared not possible.

We have one, simple, commonsense approach that should be taken--it was highlighted again today in an editorial in The Washington Post. It has also been written about in The New York Times, in the LA Times, in USA Today, in Bloomberg View, in papers large and small across the country--to raise the gas tax. It has not been raised in 22 years, and in that time, it has lost a significant portion of the purchasing power while America's needs grow.

For 60 years, the gas tax has formed the backbone of how we deal with

America's infrastructure finance. The user pays--people who benefit the most pay the most--and it served us well for over half a century.

But over the course of the last 10 years, it is no longer adequate. The fixed amount that hasn't been increased, the erosion due to inflation, increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles all combine to mean that we are falling short of the mark. We have been required to transfer over $60 billion from the general fund just to maintain our already inadequate levels of funding, and the current patch expires in May. The clock is ticking. There are opportunities to make a difference.

It is interesting. It is not just the newspaper editorial writers who focus on this as the simplest, most effective, commonsense approach. We are finding in the other body a number of Senators, including Republican Senators, who indicate that they are open to finally addressing and updating the gas tax.

My colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, Jim Renacci from Ohio, wrote a very insightful article in a recent issue of Roll Call. He made the case for our moving forward with increasing the user fee to be able to maintain our roads and bridges, highlighting the costs and consequences.

Mr. Speaker, there is an opportunity for us to move forward. This does not have to be something that is complicated or partisan. This is something that Ronald Reagan in 1982 called upon the Congress to do, where he in his Thanksgiving Day address asked for the Congress to more than double the gas tax. Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did it. We can do it today. I strongly urge my colleagues to address this simple, commonsense approach and help us rebuild and renew America.

Thank you, Mr. Scott.

Mr. Speaker, this is the 56th time we have gathered on the floor, talking past each other. The legislation that is offered by our Republican friends--a repeal--does not have any alternative. Frankly, everybody knows that it is not going to pass. If it were to be enacted into law, the President would veto it.

The facts don't justify the rhetoric. We have 10 million previously uninsured Americans. We have the lowest health care spending growth rate in 50 years. Health care premium inflation is growing at historic lows, and Medicare premiums are lower than they were before the ACA was passed, and it held steady for 3 years.

What should we be doing? Instead of trying to make the ACA worse and rail against it and get nowhere, I would suggest that we deal with things that we can agree upon.

I have been working with my colleague Mr. Roe on bipartisan legislation to deal with providers helping with end-of-life care for patients; with Representative Roskam, a Medicare Common Access Card, bipartisan legislation to establish a smart card pilot project to eliminate Medicare fraud; with Representative Black, a value-based design for better care which would establish a pilot project to test reducing or eliminating cost-sharing for seniors with high-value medications. These are things that we could do this month that would make a difference.

I hope that we stop this charade and get down to cases. The American public deserves our best efforts not to debate but to make health care better and to build on the foundation of the Affordable Care Act.