Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, in terms of what the gentleman from Georgia just said, I do appreciate the fact that we are debating many policy amendments. That is the way the process should work, both sides of the aisle contribute. That is great. Some were excluded that I think should have been included. I don't know why they weren't allowed. I was willing to stay here later last night and stay later tonight so everybody who wanted an amendment could have a chance. But the biggest and most glaring omission by the Rules Committee is of not allowing any attempt by this House to fund the bill. That is pretty extraordinary. Actually, we probably don't even have 3 years of pretend funding in the bill because some of those offsets were spent last week in the big budget deal, so I don't know what we have left. But it sure as heck isn't anywhere near 6 years of funding; and it is not 6 years of funding at a more robust level, which is necessary. Even if we funded this bill for 6 years, at the end of 6 years, our infrastructure will be more deteriorated than it is today. It is deteriorating more quickly than we are investing. That is a problem. We need to increase the investment. We haven't raised the Federal gas tax since 1993. That is a user fee, a user fee created by President Dwight David Eisenhower, raised again by Ronald Reagan, and then finally by Bill Clinton the last time it was increased. A bipartisan idea: user fee. Fund infrastructure for transportation with a user fee. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports an increase in the user fee. The American Trucking Association supports an increase in the user fee. We are virtually being begged by interest groups out there representing consumers and commercial users of the system to do something, vote on something. I offered a really simple little amendment. Let's just index the existing gas tax so we don't lose more ground. If we did that, gas would go up 1.7 cents a gallon next year. I think consumers would be outraged. No, they wouldn't be outraged. They would be pleased we started filling in the potholes and doing away with the detours around the bridges that are closed. If you indexed and you project that, you could borrow money against the future income following the budget rules of PAYGO. We could borrow $100 billion and fill in the huge hole in this bill and then use some of those so-called pay-fors to increase spending under this bill. Why can't we have a simple vote on revenues, a vote by the House of Representatives?

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, I congratulate the gentleman on his amendment. I think that this will help provide us with more factual knowledge in terms of looking at any future changes as might relate to these sorts of buses and also will provide useful information to consumers. I think it is very well thought out, and I congratulate the gentleman. I urge support of the amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, I agree that regulations often need scrutiny and revision and sometimes elimination, but this bill undertakes a good deal of streamlining, both in the environmental area and in other processes. So, if we were to go down the road of a study looking at these programs, I would say a study that is a little broader, which would look at both the costs and benefits of regulation, would be useful. I don't think this one-sided study would be particularly useful. If we want to understand the purchasing power of our highway dollars, we only need to look at the fact that Congress has failed to increase the gas tax since 1993, during which time the purchasing power, due to inflation and construction costs, has diminished by a good 40 percent or more. Whether or not we will be allowed to take action on significant revenues under this bill is still being deliberated upstairs in the Rules Committee with amendments that might or might not be allowed to be offered. I urge opposition to the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, I would suggest that I would like to continue the discussion. I think there are different conditions. Certainly if a developer buys a large tract of land next to an existing interstate and then expects the taxpayers to pay for sound protection, that is not right. But I think there are cases where you have found that a lot of interstates were built in areas where there wasn't a lot of traffic. The houses have been there for quite some time, and now the traffic has grown phenomenally, particularly truck traffic and things that create more noise. I think there may be a way to do it in certain circumstances where it is merited, where it isn't due to new development but due to growth and traffic and noise and that. I don't know if the chairman has considered that.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern about the condition of our bridges, and I have spent, as I spoke earlier tonight, a lot of time on that issue and, in fact, opposed the so- called stimulus bill because of the lack of investment in infrastructure, particularly bridges. But in this case, I think perhaps there are some drafting errors in the amendment because it would preclude using these funds for rest areas, which I think is problematic. We have a crisis in terms of safe places for people to pull over, both commercial truck drivers and individuals. So I assume that the gentlewoman did not mean to preclude the use for rest areas. Also, I don't know Missouri well, but I know in the West, actually, we have used these landscaping funds when we do new construction or significant construction to reduce maintenance costs because we have high wildfire danger in the West and, if you can plant, basically, natives that will dominate, that are not tall, are not fire-prone, then you don't have to go in and mow two or three times a year in case some idiot throws their cigarette or cigar out of the car and starts a catastrophic forest fire. So, actually, leaving the discretion to the States to use these funds in that way, depending upon their conditions, I think is important. There have been a couple of instances in past bills where they went overboard with this kind of stuff. I think the current restrictions on the program are such--and there is no mandate for the projects like resurfacing or anything else that is new construction. And doing it, as appropriate, to state ``and including rest areas.'' I think, because of all those things, I reluctantly oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, I certainly am sympathetic. I have heard from all of the territories throughout this process, and because of the paucity of funding in this bill, the funding to the territories, no matter what formula you use, is inadequate to the growth and the problems that they are experiencing. I am not opposed to the idea of developing and updating statistical measures to target the limited funds. My preference would be there would be more funds. This funding formula was set in 1992 by the Federal Highway Administration. They included consideration of population, land area, and road mileage of each of the four covered territories. Based on that review, they came up with these allocations--obviously, that was 23 years ago--40 percent each to Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands and 10 percent to American Samoa and Northern Mariana Islands. Before we unilaterally take steps to change the formula that has been in place for two decades, I think we need to hear from the delegates of all four. I have been contacted by the other two territories that would be impacted who are strongly opposed, and I would certainly like to work with the gentlewoman and all of the delegates to see what we could do to have a fair and balanced update of the formula. Again, formulas are some of the most tricky things around here. You change just one factor and you get dramatic differences at the other end. So we would have to first agree on criteria and proper factors and then direct the FHWA to run those numbers. So, Madam Chair, I reluctantly rise in opposition and urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, this bill at this point is an excellent product policy-wise. We will vigorously debate improvements and potentially problematic amendments over the next 2 days and, hopefully, have a similar or an improved product in the end. Whether or not we will be allowed to attempt to augment the funding remains to be seen. With that, we are off to a good start. I look forward to the coming debate. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, although I am not opposed to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition so I may comment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Unfortunately, the Department of Transportation disagrees. We sent this language to them, and they said, yes, it appears, by repealing 23 USC 319, the amendment would remove the Secretary's authority to approve, as part of the construction of Federal aid highways, the costs of landscape and roadside development, including acquisition and development of publicly owned and controlled rest and recreation areas and sanitary and other facilities reasonably necessary to accommodate the traveling public. So I am pleased that it was not her intention. But, according to DOT, this amendment would do that, and that would be very deleterious to the traveling public. So I would oppose the amendment, as drafted. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In the base bill, we have included measures to encourage States to build smart or right-size projects for practical design, and this amendment complements those efforts. Specifically, it mentions the use of geosynthetic materials, which the Federal Highway Administration has been promoting to speed up and reduce the cost of bridge construction as part of its Every Day Counts initiative. Use of geosynthetic fabrics to reinforce soil can reduce erosion at the point where bridge and road meet, which reduces maintenance costs and provides environmental benefits. All of these approaches help ensure that we are able to stretch the limited dollars we have to make meaningful improvements to our roads and bridges. It is a meritorious amendment by the gentleman. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the two gentlemen involved for noting this deficiency in the rule. It is inexplicable to me that, although they certainly noted the need in the new design to have a protective housing around the pressure relief valve so they wouldn't shear off in a rollover accident, they did not extend that to retrofitted cars. This amendment ensures that they will meet those stronger standards. I think this amendment has tremendous merit. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the Democratic sponsor of the amendment.