Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), one of the champions on our committee for infrastructure in America.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), who has been a valued member of our committee, and we are going to miss her.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), a valued member of our Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), an eloquent spokesperson for rebuilding and renewing America.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield myself the remainder of the time. I appreciate my friend from Michigan putting into the Record what can only be regarded as reluctant letters of support. I wish that some of my colleagues would have had time to look at it. It is not a ringing endorsement of what is before us. It is a reluctant acknowledgement that that is all we have time for, that is all the Republicans will allow. I have worked with those groups, with the road builders, with the Chamber, with the AFL-CIO, with the contractors, with elements large and small, local governments, transit. They are unanimous in their effort, in their regard that we should deal with this in the big picture. A number of them had letters before the Ways and Means Committee that it should be done this year, not kicked forward. That is why I asked our Republican chairman to allow us to hear from these people. If we would have heard from Peter Ruane from the Road Builders in person; Tom Donohue from the Chamber; Rich Trumka from the AFL-CIO; Terence O'Sullivan, the eloquent leader of the Laborers'; from the AAA and the truckers, Bill Graves, they wouldn't endorse this approach. They would be talking about our getting down to business. But the Republicans would not allow us a hearing, not for 43 months. So they are reduced to offering tepid letters of support so the whole system doesn't fall apart. Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully suggest that those are not a reason to move forward with this legislation and be happy. It is a sad commentary that this is the best that the Republicans think they can give us. Those road groups who depend on moving freight, maintaining roads, who care about the health and well-being of our communities deserve better. Our families deserve better. The economy deserves better. I hope that we will, in a moment, have a motion to recommit that will shorten the amount of time that we let this Congress off the hook and make sure that we don't adjourn this Congress without doing our job. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I am, in its current form.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this may be the last chance Congress has to honor our commitments to provide answers about transportation funding and develop a framework that will guide the Federal partnership that has meant so much. The motion won't kill the bill, and it won't delay the bill. It simply reduces the funding to the amount necessary for Congress to do its job before we adjourn for the year. It is so that we cannot duck our responsibilities and hand this off not to the next Congress but to the Congress after that. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, in May of next year there will be no transportation bill, there will be no funding, and Congress will be even more nervous and confused with a transportation problem that will be more complex. It will be more expensive, and the politics, I am sad to say, will be harder, not easier. My good friend, the chair of the Ways and Means Committee, does have a proposal. He has never had a hearing on it. And it was dismissed when it was announced by his own Speaker, if I quote: ``Blah, blah, blah.'' This is a sad moment for me. But it is not too late for us to do something about it. We need to move forward and have a tighter timetable. Let's finally have a hearing in Ways and Means. Let's have a proposal going forward. I am perfectly willing to work in August to do this. I would be happy for us to add days in September. We shouldn't recess in October to campaign and leave a big question mark. It is true that it takes time to put these things together, but we won't be putting it together next spring, mark my words. The Republicans need to enable us to find out where they stand. Will they finally have a hearing on my friend Mr. Camp's proposal? Will they slash the highway trust fund and abandon the responsibilities? Or will they just use the Ryan budget and reduce transportation 30 percent over the next 10 years and no new projects for 15 months? Those are all legitimate issues. They deserve to have a day in court, and if we get down to work, we could resolve it. I am confident we can do it, and it will be just as easy, if not easier, to do now than waiting until next year when the clock will be ticking, when half the United States Senate will be running for President, and we will have a new lineup, other than the Speaker, who may be happy to have avoided it. It is not going to be any easier. I respectfully suggest that we honor those 62 groups that want us to move. Look, they would much rather have us do it this year. We had infrastructure that was once the envy of the world. Now it is a source of embarrassment. We are 27th in the world and sinking. Our problems are getting more expensive, and they are getting harder. I know how hard the job that the chair of the T&I Committee has. I respect him, I respect the committee, but they need to know exactly how much money they have got so they can fashion a bill, and if they did that, they would be able to crank one out, I am confident, in a month or two. But right now, after an entire Congress, they don't have a bill. We don't have a bill. Those 62 groups and organizations don't have a path. What they have is a great big question mark next May when we start this all over again. This shouldn't be a partisan argument. I disagreed when President Bush shut it down. I disagreed that President Obama didn't move forward, but it is not Republicans versus Democrats. It is not House versus Senate. It is time for us to all come together and work as the stakeholders would have us do. In fact, we don't even have to have any courage. We can just follow what those experts who represent truckers, AAA, local government, and contractors have offered as guidance. Read the special commissions that have reported to President Bush. This is not rocket science. It is will, it is action, it is deciding exactly how much we are going to spend and when. Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully request that the House approve this motion to recommit, give us enough time and money to avoid the summer shutdown but not enough to let this Congress off the hook and hand it off to the 115th or the 120th Congress, but we do our job so America can do its. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I just shared with the Speaker that the battle to save the lives of Afghans who helped Americans as guides and interpreters has been a roller coaster, documented again Wednesday night in a gripping film, ``The Interpreters,'' by VICE News, about the American failure to protect those who helped us. The program was brought back to life during the difficult government shutdown period by a bipartisan effort. Now that same bipartisan spirit is needed again, because only a few hundred visas remain with 6,000 people in the pipeline, with thousands more who must not be left to the tender mercies of the Taliban seeking revenge to torture and kill them. It is the moral obligation of every Member of Congress to protect the men and women who helped Americans, who protected us in some of the most difficult of circumstances. Please don't just cosponsor H.R. 4594; demand action before we adjourn. Lives are at stake.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we have an unusual prospect tomorrow where a proposal to raise money for the highway trust fund is opposed by the very interests strongly identified with the need for more transportation funding. How did we get to this point? Why do we need the money? And why would the very interests that seem to benefit be opposed? This is the latest chapter in the strange saga of congressional irresponsibility on transportation funding that started when the last Congress refused to meaningfully address the funding crisis. You see, the funding has fallen in the highway trust fund that is based on gallons of fuel consumed, but the need continues. The United States is now spending far less on infrastructure than our competing countries, and the vital Federal partnership, which can be a third or more of the funding in our States, is falling further and further behind. But Congress put its head in the sand. There has not even been a hearing on the needs of transportation finance by the Ways and Means Committee, which is the House committee with primary jurisdiction. I am afraid my friend Dave Camp, the chair of that committee, has it exactly wrong. He is proposing a short-term fix tomorrow, saying it is time for the committees of the entire House and Senate to have the influence they deserve by kicking it into the next Congress. Well, wait a minute, by refusing to have a hearing for 3\1/2\ years on transportation financing, this has produced the backroom maneuvering with no public discussion that he says he is opposed to. Now the results of the last Congress' failure to deal meaningfully are coming sharply into focus. The already inadequate highway trust fund will not even last through the end of the 27-month extension, which expires September 30. By draining every last dime out of the highway trust fund, they have lost the capacity to manage it, and the Federal Government is preparing to cut back. That means State and local projects will be on hold later this summer. This pending crisis has finally sparked action, but because we have never bothered to listen to the businesses and labor unions--Pete Ruane of Road Builders, Terry O'Sullivan of the Laborers', Tom Donohue of the U.S. Chamber, Rich Trumka of the AFL-CIO, Bill Graves of the American Trucking Assoc.--these are people who could have told Congress why it actually could be even worse than allowing the trust fund to temporarily go dry. That would be to punt this into the next Congress. We have a long-term funding crisis. To kick this can to the next Congress makes it a virtual certainty we will continue to wrestle far beyond the next 2 years. Remember, in the next Congress, the Senate will be more evenly divided no matter who is in charge; we will be in the middle of a heated Presidential campaign, which seems like it has already started and half the Members of the other body are running for President. There is no realistic opportunity for the meaningful help America needs. It will be put on hold until another Presidential election is past and, hopefully, a stronger Congress elected. But that is 3 years or more. America deserves better. That is why, almost without exception, the people who care the most and know the most, simply want a solution that gets us past the summer shutdown, enough money to tide us towards the end of the next year so this Congress can act. Then this Congress can take action that is sustainable with dedicated funding and that is robust enough to have a 6-year transportation bill that America needs. There was a time when transportation and infrastructure brought America together to produce the finest roads, bridges, transit, and railroads in the world. We can do this again. It is time to start down this path. I have been working with these stakeholders for years. We are open to solutions to the transportation problems. Let's listen to the needs that others have. Let's reject a proposal to punt to the next Congress. Let's get down to business and not adjourn this year until this Congress has met its responsibilities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, for nearly two decades, one of my primary missions in Congress has been a simple one--to make our federal government a better partner to our local communities. Specifically, I believe we need to focus on making our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure by dealing with low-tech, high-impact, inexpensive solutions to some of society's most expensive problems. In many instances that means making the communities that our landscape architects know how to create, a reality. As an honorary member of the American Society of Landscape Architects, and humble recipient of the Olmsted Medal, it's an honor to highlight the importance of National Landscape Architecture Month and the many men and women who carry out this critical and visionary work. National Landscape Architecture Month (NLAM) provides all of us--the professionals, the outside advocates like myself, and future designers--with an opportunity to more fully appreciate landscape architecture's benefits and contributions. In recognition of NLAM, I would like to highlight the landscape architecture profession and how landscape architects utilize design to make our lives not only better and more enjoyable by creating engaging public spaces, but also more secure by creating efficient, cost-effective infrastructure solutions. Landscape architecture connects the analysis, planning, design, management, and stewardship of the natural and built environments through science and design. The presence of the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) and landscape architect professionals in our communities has always been positive, and as the desire for livable spaces grows and the natural environment continues to get squeezed by increased urbanization, this profession will get significantly more attention. During the month of April, landscape architects in my hometown of Portland, Oregon and across the country held public events showcasing the work of the profession that directly engage the public through local projects, speaking engagements, and in-school presentations. This year's theme, Career Discovery, introduced young people to landscape architecture as a possible career path and focused on introducing underrepresented minorities to the profession, illustrating the fundamentals of landscape architecture and design, and demonstrating how the profession can unlock human creativity and imagination to develop sustainable, livable spaces in communities across the Nation. In addition to beautifying and making our communities more livable, in which people can walk, bike, or take public transportation, landscape architecture is a critical tool for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and responding to the effects of climate change and extreme weather events. The field is also making new strides to improve America's aging transportation infrastructure. Landscape architects are now incorporating multiuse transportation corridors that accommodate all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, people with disabilities, and people who rely on public transportation. Landscape architecture also touches our everyday lives in the design of residential communities, commercial developments, and streetscapes. Landscape architects manage storm water and other water quality issues through green infrastructure practices--reducing runoff, improving water quality, and recharging groundwater supplies. The use of trees and vegetation in urban design are critical to a sustainable environment, and are major combatants to ground and water pollution. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing National Landscape Architecture Month and the contributions landscape architects are making to transform our aging infrastructure into well-planned communities across the Nation. Every day, these well-qualified, licensed professionals continue to lead the way in improving the lives and safety of the American people for generations, both present and future.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this is an old friend to the committee and the floor and my friend, Congressman Hastings, and we couldn't have him retire from Congress without doing this one more time. By way of background for those who haven't walked through this before, in 1995, Congress--desiring to encourage bidding on leases in certain deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico--provided relief from the normal applicable royalties payable to the United States. What we found, in the course of this, is it worked. People bid on the leases, they went in; but we found out that there was no provision for eliminating the royalty exemption if the market price of oil rose back up to reasonable levels. According to some accounts, this omission might have been an administrative error. What we have found about the mismanagement of the Minerals Management Services--people literally in bed with the people that they were supposed to regulate--it may not have been an administrative oversight, but whatever, it was wrong. It shouldn't have been there. As a result, now with oil up to $100 a barrel and higher, they are pumping this oil without paying anything to the Federal Government, far beyond what was ever contemplated. Now my amendment is simple. It gives these companies a choice. They can either renegotiate and execute leases for this oil, which was obviously the intent--there was never any intent to make this permanent on an ongoing basis--and pay reasonable royalties to the United States, especially since a number of these companies are foreign companies, state-owned enterprises, or they simply wouldn't be able to bid for new leases. Their choice. No coercion. But the taxpayers stand to benefit $15.5 billion over the next 10 years, and, in fact, over the life of these leases, $31 billion or more. I respectfully suggest, it is time to approve this amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, we are not seeking to break contracts. What we are doing is providing an opportunity for people to renegotiate these contracts, to stop making a profit by exploiting a loophole or a mistake that both of us agree was unintended and unfortunate. This would be their choice. Contracts are renegotiated on an ongoing basis routinely with government and in the private sector. And I would respectfully suggest that this is a contract that is long overdue to be renegotiated. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. How much time remains?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, there is an excellent report from the Congressional Research Service on this subject that makes clear that it is not illegal or in violation of contract law. The argument is very sustainable. And it is not the oil company that gives me heartburn, to my dear friend. I would think any of us would have heartburn if the Federal Treasury, the taxpayers, were cheated out of $25 billion to $50 billion due to an error or an omission. That ought to give heartburn to anybody. This amendment will fix it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today many Members of Congress awoke listening to NPR for yet another story about Norfolk, Virginia, the area of the United States on the eastern seaboard where we have seen the most rapid increase in the sea level. This matters, being home to the largest naval base in the world, placing in question its long-term survivability. A story in The Washington Post several weeks ago talked about the impact that this is having on the waterfront, including one church that is being forced to relocate. I love the pastor's comment that his parishioners should not have to consult a tide table to determine whether or not they can go to church. The morning news also included the Supreme Court's third affirmation of the power of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, setting hopefully at rest the long-term battle over whether or not we can deal with this critical area of carbon pollution. We also have seen a media blitz from a coalition of respected senior officials--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents stretching back to the Nixon administration--talking about the impact of climate change, particularly as it deals with business. We have had a report from four Republican EPA administrators talking about the need to support the EPA's effort with the new rule for carbon emissions. Today, on the steps of Capitol Hill as I passed, there were representatives from the Citizens Climate Lobby from all over the country who are fanning out across the Capitol making their case. Mr. Speaker, the science is, in fact, clear. We have very severe problems associated with carbon pollution and the impacts that humans have had on climate. We are looking at reports that ought to sober everybody around here, tripling the number of days of 95 degree-plus weather, thinking about the impacts that rising sea level is going to have on coastal States. Louisiana, for example, is looking at up to 5 percent of their insurable land being underwater by midcentury, perhaps 20 percent by the turn of the century. There is $1.5 trillion of insurable properties that is likely to be underwater. It is time for us to stop debating the science. The science is, in fact, clear. It is time for us to look at opportunities. The EPA rule is going to go into effect. We all ought to be engaged with taking advantage of the flexibility that has been proposed by the administration to fine-tune it to the needs and opportunities in our State. It is important that we start work on the implementation of a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Virtually every expert--conservative, liberal, economists, even many business leaders--agrees that having a revenue-neutral carbon tax to change the habits of American business and households, using the revenues to reduce the impact on lower-income citizens and on small business, is the quickest, fastest way to be able to make progress on climate protection. We can, in fact, slow the impact, and we can prepare for what we cannot avoid. Experts in climate science, joined by hardheaded business people and citizen activists, all agree that it is time for Congress to get engaged, for Congress to stop this active denial, and come together on simple commonsense steps that we can make to strengthen our communities to slow the increase of climate change and be able to prepare for stronger opportunities in our local economies as we move to take advantage of this. Everybody should take action, so that all our families can be safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin, if I could, by thanking my friend from California for his ongoing leadership, advocacy, and focus on how we are going to rebuild and renew the country--making these critical investments, putting people to work, and calling upon this Congress to get in gear to be able to move the country forward. I appreciate his courtesy and his leadership. I would like to begin, if I could, by turning to another of my colleagues from Kansas City, Missouri, Reverend Emanuel Cleaver, who is a gentleman who was kind enough to give me a visa to visit his district recently. I watched not just the affection that his constituents had for him but the big plans, evidenced in his community, that were dealing with how we put the pieces together for a more sustainable future--a vision for transportation. It was fascinating for me to watch, and I appreciate his allowing me to be a part of it. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas City at this time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you very much, Congressman Cleaver. I appreciate your painting a very powerful picture, taking it home, as an example, and the work that you have done, both in Congress and as a local leader, a mayor, a member of the city council. You understand this. You understand that the infrastructure in Kansas City, Missouri, used to be a point of pride. It was something that brought people together, but that is not unique to your community or mine. Infrastructure used to be a point of pride that united Americans across this great Nation. 152 years ago, the Transcontinental Railroad under, I might say, a Republican President--President Lincoln--helped us be able to develop the United States. It tied the country together. It helped in terms of the opening up of the west, and the United States from that point, until the end of World War II, had the finest passenger rail system in the world--not there anymore. As was referenced, under the leadership, signed into law by President Eisenhower, there was a bipartisan initiative, a Democratically- controlled Congress, a Republican President, who initiated the interstate highway system. The United States, over the course of a quarter century, had the largest public works project in our history to that point. It was in every State in the Union. It created more economic value than it cost, and it was a point of pride to have the finest road system in the world. Similarly, we have made great advancements in our history dealing with water and sewage systems. The simple fact is, as was referenced by both my colleagues already this evening, the United States is falling behind. We are no longer rated number one in the world. The last survey I saw put us at 14th and falling. We are investing the smallest amount of percentage of our economy as we have in 20 years--less than 2 percent--and far less than our competitors in China, in Europe, Japan, India. The United States is in trouble. Unless and until we are able to get our act together to be able to protect, maintain, and enhance our infrastructure, we are not going to be able to meet the needs of the American people, and in fact, we are going to lose our competitive position around the world. On top of this, we are in the midst of a funding crisis for our infrastructure, and this could not come at a worse time. As both my colleagues indicated, investing in infrastructure is one of the best ways to create family-wage jobs. The estimates are between 25,000 and over 30,000 jobs for each billion dollars that is invested. The most recent report I saw from Standard & Poor's said, for $1.3 billion, it is 29,000 jobs. That investment would actually lower the deficit $200 million, and it would increase overall economic activity in the United States a third more than the $1.3 billion invested. The $1.3 billion gives you, overall, $2 billion rippling through the economy. While we are slowly falling apart, while we are struggling with a jobless recovery, and how we could desperately use these family-wage jobs that will be created in every State in the Union, there is also ongoing damage to individuals. They don't have to be on a bridge that collapsed. AAA tells us--and that is the preeminent organization nationally that represents motorists--they have followed this very closely. Their estimate is that the average motorist incurs $323 a year of damage to their cars because of inadequately maintained roads, so it is not just that they are not getting the service. It is not just that they are trapped in congestion. It is actually costing them money every month, in terms of damage to what, for most Americans, is their second or third most valuable asset. Last Congress gave up on a 6-year reauthorization. They just couldn't do it. They walked around it, but they couldn't deal with the funding question, so they settled for a short-term, 27-month extension that expires in 98 days. September 30, it is over, but the money in the transportation trust fund will not last nearly that long. My colleague mentioned that, next month or so, we are going to drop below the trust fund balance that the Department of Transportation tells us is necessary to be able to manage the hundreds and hundreds of contracts all across the country that are part of the unique Federal- State-local partnership. They can't take the trust fund down to zero, so they are going to start cutting back this summer, and because our partners around the country in State and local government understand what is happening, they are starting to cut back now. More than eight States are already signaling what they are going to have to forego this summer, so we have got a summer slowdown, and it is only going to get worse, and Congress, in the meantime, spins its wheels. It is hard to be meaningful in efforts to reauthorize the surface transportation bill, which is on the verge of expiring, if you don't even know what your resources are. We have no idea what the resources are that are available to the House Transportation Committee and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works because we haven't established how we are going to pay for it. Now, we have heard gimmicks from our Republican friends. You know, last Congress, their solution was to take away all the guaranteed funding for transit and for transportation enhancements. The enhancements, by the way, are the most popular program that the Department of Transportation administers. They were going to take away that guaranteed funding. I find that somewhat ironic because that guaranteed funding came from Ronald Reagan. In the Reagan administration, they decided that they were going to have 20 percent in the transit account and 80 percent in the highway account, so you wouldn't have uncertainty. You wouldn't have people battling every year, year in and year out, about going forward on major projects. Most important, if you are going to deal with major transit and highway projects, you need certainty; and President Reagan and his administration, in their wisdom, promoted a program that established the highway trust fund and had a separate account for transit. Well, last Congress, the gimmick was: we will just strip away all that guaranteed funding, and we will have some theoretical money to keep the transportation program afloat. It blew up in their face. They were able to get it through the Ways and Means Committee on a party line vote, by the way, never having a hearing on it, just moved to a work session, and it was roundly attacked. Groups, truckers, business, environmental groups, local governments, transit, the entire infrastructure community rose up in rebellion against this goofy idea that was not going to deal with the fully funding needs, and it was going to pit people against one another. The outrage was so strong that our Republican friends couldn't even bring their own bill to the floor, and it collapsed, and we were ending up with this 27-month gimmick. It was funded by simply draining every dollar out of the highway trust fund, and in so doing, they thought they could maybe last for 27 months. Well, as we are finding out, they can't. The next gimmick that we are hearing about--and I love this one--it is fascinating. Our Republican friends have required the post office, unlike any other agency--or near as I can tell, any business--to prefund the health insurance of future employees, so they are charging the post office an extra $5 billion a year for employees that aren't even on the payroll, let alone their retirement in the future. So the post office has some challenges in terms of different patterns, in terms of this prefunding obligation, shifting use of the post office, and the refusal of some in Congress to allow the post office to operate like a business, so it has got a funding crisis. The Republican alternative is to take a post office that has a funding crisis--it is a real one, it was artificially created, but it is a real crisis--and to eliminate Saturday mail delivery for 10 years and take these theoretical savings by eliminating Saturday home service and use these theoretical savings from an agency that they claim is going bankrupt, and they are actually trying to make go bankrupt, and use it for another bankrupt institution--that is the highway trust fund. Ludicrous--10 years' savings of eliminating home delivery, which are theoretical, no sense at all that they are going to materialize, but for 10 years--and it would just produce enough money to get us into the next fiscal year, and leave the post office worse off than it is now. Luckily, I think our friends on the other side of the aisle have realized that is not a solution, and I think they have dropped that, realizing it is not going to go anywhere. There are actual proposals that would meet this challenge. I have got legislation that has been endorsed by the AFL-CIO, by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, by both the truckers and AAA, the contractors, engineers, local government, transit, to just--straight up--deal with the fact that we haven't raised the gas tax for 21 years--pretty straightforward. It works. My colleague, Peter DeFazio from Oregon, a senior member on the Transportation Committee, has proposed looking at a barrel tax for oil and makes a strong case that this would have significant advantages and would allow us to go forward. You know, I don't care what solution we come up with. There are a number of good ideas. Last week, Senator Murphy of Connecticut and Senator Corker of Tennessee came up with a proposal in the Senate that they thought would provide those resources. What is interesting is that the House has been AWOL on this. We have not had a single hearing in Ways and Means this year, last year, the year before that, or the year before that. It has been 42 months since the Republicans took over. We haven't had a single hearing on transportation finance. I find that shocking. I find it embarrassing as a member of the committee and as a Member of the House of Representatives. As an American, I find it shameful that we are not doing our part. Luckily, the other body is moving. My friend and colleague, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, is moving ahead with some alternatives that would help keep the trust fund afloat so that we can avoid the summer shutdown and we don't have to stop the programs and put these people out of work. It will give us breathing room so that the people in the House can step up and do our job. Mr. Speaker, every single Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee requested the Republican leadership--months ago--to at least give us a hearing. You don't have to buy into any solution, but let's come together, look at the problem, and hear solutions from the Americans who are dealing with it. Let's hear from the Governors. Let's hear from the transit agencies, from the State transportation commissions, highway departments. Let's hear from the men and women who work in the maintenance and construction of our infrastructure--the bridges, the roads, the transit. Let's hear from the engineers, the truckers, the representatives of the automobiles. They have got some strong opinions. They have potential solutions. They have done research that the committee should hear about, that every Member of Congress should hear about. Sadly, as the clock winds down, as we look at the summer shutdown and the pending bankruptcy of the highway trust fund, the House is frozen in place. Time is slipping away. We have just a few dozen legislative days before the House is scheduled to adjourn for the election, and we have not one thing on the agenda to deal with this. I hope that my Republican colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee will join us in at least having a hearing, listening to alternatives, working together to analyze the pros and cons of the various approaches going forward. I hope that every Republican and every Democrat makes a commitment that we are not going to adjourn for the year until we provide the American people, the businesses and communities that depend on it, a robust, well-funded, stable highway transportation trust fund with dedicated funding. That was the key to President Eisenhower and the success of the interstate freeway system. That has helped us with aviation. It has made a difference in terms of transit. The American people deserve no less than us our doing our job--robust funding, stable funding, dedicated funding that will allow American communities to have the partnership of the Federal Government that they need for the infrastructure they deserve. I strongly urge my colleagues to reflect on this, and I hope each American makes clear their desires and their expectations about how Congress meets this responsibility. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.