Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

Mr. DeFAZIO. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) be permitted to control the balance of the time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself 2 minutes. This is 27 months of certainty for the States. That's good. They'll be able to plan major projects. That will mean there will be some equipment acquisitions by contractors and others, unlike the short-term miniscule amount of money spent during the so-called ``stimulus'' bill, which I opposed. That's good. But this is not enough. Ten years ago, the United States of America was rated as having the fifth-best transportation infrastructure in the world. Not great, but not that bad. Today, we are 25th in the world. Most Third World countries are spending a much larger percentage of their gross domestic product on transportation infrastructure than we are. The Eisenhower legacy is crumbling. We have 150,000 bridges that need repair or replacement. Forty percent of the pavement on the national highway system needs to be totally redone, not just surfaced. And we have a $70 billion backlog in transit, and we have Buy America rules, which guarantee that all the products that go into those jobs, that investment we need, would be kept here at home. So we did not get to that point with this bill. This is essentially a little decline from what we just spent last year on transportation infrastructure. And what we spent last year, according to two blue ribbon panels commissioned during the Bush administration, is about half of what we need to begin to bring this up to a world-class system to compete with the rest of the world and deal with the deficiencies. Build a 21st century transportation system. This money in this bill for 27 months will be enough to put a few more Band- Aids on the 20th century, and the 19th century infrastructure, in some places, that we're still utilizing. There are good things. It builds on the ideas that Chairman Oberstar and I offered 2 years ago to dramatically consolidate the bureaucracy downtown at the Department of Transportation. We don't need to be spending money on 106 different programs that are so complicated that no one knows how to apply, and how to apply the rules, and all that. That's good. We're going to consolidate that. It does some streamlining so projects will get done more quickly. There are a number of salutary aspects of this bill. But we need to do better by the American people the next time we address that issue.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, more than three and a half years ago an impoundment holding disposed ash waste broke open, creating a massive spill in Kingston, Tennessee. The spill covered entire neighborhoods and the Clinch River with over one billion gallons of coal fly ash-- displacing residents and resulting in $1.2 billion in clean up costs. The accident underscored the need for strong rules to ensure structural stability and the safety of coal ash impoundments. Yet, as of today, no national rules have been put into place to prevent another Kingston spill. Two years ago the Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first- ever regulations to ensure the safe disposal and management of coal ash from power plants under the nation's primary law for regulating solid waste, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA presented two regulatory options: regulating coal ash as hazardous waste under Subtitle C or regulating coal ash as a non- hazardous waste under Subtitle D. But the EPA's proposal has stalled creating uncertainty for businesses and families. As I said when the House of Representatives considered this issue last October, I have concerns that designating fly ash as a hazardous material will have major impacts on the recycling and reuse of fly ash to manufacture wallboard, roofing materials and bricks, and especially concrete. In 2008 alone, the concrete industry used 15.8 million tons of fly ash in the manufacturing of ready mixed concrete making it the most widely used supplemental cementing material. When combined with cement, fly ash improves the durability, strength, constructability, and economy of concrete. It also has huge environmental benefits. Using coal ash--an industrial byproduct--in concrete results in longer lasting structures and reduction in the amount of waste materials sent to landfills, raw materials extracted, energy required for production, and air emissions, including carbon dioxide. A ``hazardous'' designation of fly ash could put these benefits in jeopardy. It could make fly ash storage and transportation more expensive, and create a legal environment that would deter cement manufacturers from recycling fly ash in cement production. The result would not only be devastating for the cement manufacturing industry and American jobs, it could also divert millions of tons of coal fly ash from beneficial uses to surface impoundments like the one that broke open in Kingston, Tennessee--an outcome nobody wants. I don't think H.R. 2273 is a perfect bill. And, to be clear, I support strong regulations for the disposal and storage of coal ash. But, these regulations can and should be completed without jeopardizing the recycling and reuse of fly ash. I am supporting Rep. McKinley's motion to instruct because it would move the conversation forward on how to find a reasonable and responsible balance between protecting communities and our environment, while also incentivizing the recycling and reuse of coal ash--goals we can all support. It is my understanding that my colleagues on the conference are making progress in finding that balance. Meaningful conversations that began more than six months ago between key stakeholders are beginning to bear some fruit on this issue. We shouldn't ignore this issue--it's too important. We shouldn't wait for an undefined period of time before strong rules are put in place. We shouldn't discourage recycling and reuse of coal ash by unnecessarily labeling it as ``hazardous waste.'' Let's pass this motion and get back to work on a long-term bill.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. That's the Oklahoma State line. Oklahoma had promised to build their section, but they couldn't because they had a funding dispute. And they didn't--until the Eisenhower bill passed and we had Federal aid to help Oklahoma build their section. Now, we should go back to those good old days? But there are some 85-odd members of the Republican Conference who are opposing a well-funded, longer term bill because this is their belief: These were better days for the United States of America. Well, I'll tell you what. We could do a bill, and we could do a bill that does accommodate some of the concerns on the Republican side of the aisle with a serious conference over the next few days, with a will just to get it done, put America back to work, and rebuild our infrastructure. And you're going to have to have, unfortunately, because of your devolutionists, some Democratic votes to pass it. Let's go back to the days of Denny Hastert: A majority of the majority need to vote for a bill, but it doesn't have to be passed only with Republican votes. We're not going to ever get a bill done if it's done on a partisan basis.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Since the founding of our Nation, there has been bipartisan agreement on the need for the Federal Government to play a strong role in interconnecting the States of our country. It was George Washington who said: The only binding cement, and no otherwise to be effected but by opening such communications as will make it easier and cheaper for them to bring the product of their labor to our markets. And that's relevant today, I'll address that in a moment. The second quote which is relevant to the dispute today is: We are either united people under one head for Federal purposes, or we are 13 independent sovereign entities eternally counteracting each other. This is the need--and the gentleman knows this photo well. There are more than 70,000 bridges that are structurally deficient in this country, load limited; there are another 70,000 or so that are functionally obsolete or need substantial repair--150,000 bridges. Forty percent of the pavement on the National Highway System doesn't just need an overlay; it needs to be dug up; it needs underlayment and restructuring. And a $70 billion backlog on our transit systems. We are actually killing people because we aren't investing in our infrastructure, let alone losing the opportunities for millions of jobs and economic competitiveness and more fuel efficiency. People died right here in Washington, D.C., on the Metro because they're running cars that don't work anymore in the middle of trains, surrounded by cars that are supposed to work and help the ones that don't work. People died here because this bridge collapsed. We need to make these investments. With the Made In America requirements in the transportation portions of our government--which are the strongest and we hope to make even stronger in this bill, working with the Republican side of the aisle here--we could put millions to work, not just construction workers who certainly need the jobs, but also small businesses that supply, fabrication firms, manufacturing firms, steel manufacturers, and others across the board would be put to work rebuilding our infrastructure. What's the problem? Here's the problem: The second thing that George Washington talked about, saying that we're either united or we're going to be internally counteracting one another. There are, unfortunately, a substantial number of Republicans in their conference who have blocked movement on a bill because they don't believe, unlike George Washington, that the Federal Government has a role to play in coordinating a national transportation system. They want to devolve to the States. They want to go back to the good old days before Dwight David Eisenhower brought us into the modern era with the National Highway System. Here's the good old days. That's the brand-spanking-new Kansas turnpike--oops, it ends in Amos Schweizer's field. That's the Oklahoma State line.

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. What it says is that should this legislation pass and the 100,000 acres of forest pass over to the Sealaska Native corporation, a for-profit corporation, that we would ban the export of unprocessed logs from those lands. This would be consistent with the law that applies to the lower 48 west of the Mississippi River. In 1990, I partnered with Senator Bob Packwood from Oregon to make permanent what had then been an appropriations rider ban since the era of Wayne Morris, and the rationale for that was that we should not be a tree farm for other nations. We want to be an industrial Nation. We want to get value added. We want to export finished products overseas. We've seen in the last couple of years a flood of private-lands exports from Oregon and Washington, which is timber actually being wasted. Until very recently, the Chinese were paying above-market prices for raw logs, Douglas fir logs, which they were using, prime timber, one time in construction forms, and then discarding, an incredible waste of a resource and also an economic loss to the Pacific Northwest. Despite the fact that Washington State exported $1 billion worth of non-Federal raw logs last year, which is twice the amount that they exported just 2 years before, the number of logging jobs did not increase despite this export, and the number of sawmill jobs dropped by a third in Washington State. We're exporting a limited natural resource to which we could add value through what we have, the most productive mills in the world in the United States of America. And instead, those logs are going overseas, and we're actually losing jobs. Yes, it is profitable for the private landowners, and we don't have restrictions on the export of private logs. But this is public forest lands today which would be converted to private forest lands, and we believe that the potential benefits should be maximized should this happen and that these logs should be manufactured before being exported. If they were exported, I would say in fact there would be a substantial raw-log market in my State because my mills are importing timber from around the world, actually, and from other States in the U.S. to keep their mills running. In Oregon, non-Federal raw-log exports, again private-land exports, have doubled over the last 3 years to $2.3 billion in value while my sawmills and logging industry reached new lows. This harvesting for export of raw logs is not benefiting the local economies or the United States of America. And in Alaska, raw-log exports from Alaska to China have increased 16-fold over the last decade. Yet the economic benefits of running those logs or potentially running those logs through sawmills was not realized, benefiting rural communities. I have many depressed rural areas that I represent. We're fighting over how we can get some more logs off Federal lands, logs which can't be exported. These logs could not only benefit Alaskans who could use the manufacturing jobs, and perhaps would see some new investment in sawmill capacity should this amount of timber come onto the market, but also potentially other west coast States, including Oregon and Washington, where our sawmills are struggling to find adequate supply. So I believe this would be a beneficial, commonsense amendment. It would bring Federal logs, Federal trees, Federal forests, and would make the use of those logs, should they be harvested, consistent with the rest of the Federal lands in the western United States. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I certainly respect the gentleman from Alaska, and I know that it's his intention to benefit the people of Alaska. I've been involved in this issue now for almost--well, for 22 years on the issue of exporting raw logs. In fact, I did try and restrict the export of private logs back there in 1990 and couldn't get that, but at least we got the Federal and at least we've kept the State, and we do get value added. And for every 1,000 board feet of timber harvested, we get more jobs than just a logging job, a trucking job, and a loading it on the ship job. We get the jobs in the mills. I would argue that the same would flow to Alaska should this amendment pass. With that, I yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, last night we debated the future of our national transportation system. There are two competing views. There are those of us who want to rebuild and build upon the Eisenhower legacy with a national transportation system. And then there are those on the ultra-right who say the Federal Government should not invest in the national transportation system. It should be devolved to the States. Hey, we already tried that. This is 1956. This is the brand spanking new Kansas turnpike. Guess what? It ended in a farmer's field at the Oklahoma line because Oklahoma didn't build their section until the Eisenhower plan passed and the Federal Government made the investment. They want to go back to those good old days. That's going to work really well. Those of us who believe in investing in a national transportation system, putting America back to work, being more competitive and more fuel efficient last night were accused of being Socialists. We're Socialists because we believe in that. Right, Dwight David Eisenhower was a Socialist? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce are Socialists? The U.S. Chamber is adamantly opposed to the Broun instruction. They say the Chamber strongly opposes the Broun motion to instruct conferees and urges you to vote against this effort to slash funding for highways, transit and safety programs. He would take it zero--no new investment on October 1. That's bad for America.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. I would just key in on one of the aspects of the President's proposal, and that would be long-term legislation to invest $450 billion in our crumbling infrastructure. Now, some people say to me, well, Congressman, I don't work in construction. I say, these aren't just construction jobs. We have the strongest Buy America requirements in the area of transportation investments. Underline two words: ``investments'' and ``jobs.'' Now, those investments, if made under Buy America in, say, transit vehicles, involve engineering, manufacturing. They involve steel manufacturing. They involve sophisticated fabrication of vehicles, the tires for buses, all of those sorts of things. We could put millions of people back to work and begin to revive the devastated American manufacturing sector and for once keeping the Chinese from stealing our jobs because of the Buy America protections. But, no, the Republicans don't want to do that. They don't really like the Buy America provisions in the bill, and they don't want to make the investments. We were here till midnight last night. The gentleman from Georgia proposed that we end all new Federal investment in transportation infrastructure on October 1. There would not have been one penny more. All of the money that he would allow in next year's budget would only be enough to pay for ongoing projects. When the States finish a project, we reimburse them. We authorize the projects; the States build them; we reimburse them. The money that he would limit us to would only pay for projects already ongoing. That would bring it all to a halt, despite the fact the system is falling apart. We're living off the legacy of Dwight David Eisenhower, a mid- 20th century legacy. It's falling apart. It needs to be rebuilt. We also need to build out a 21st century infrastructure to more efficiently move goods and people and compete with our competitors. Now, I heard a lot of nonsense last night, and 82 Republicans voted for this today, so this is a problem. The Republican Conference is having an internal war among themselves. They have 82 Members who believe the Federal Government--the Federal Government, the people of the United States assembled, the 50 States and territories--should not invest in transportation and infrastructure, that it should be done by the 50 States. It should be devolved. That's crazy. That's crazy. In the 21st century, we're going to have a 50-State transportation policy? And how are the States going to pay for it? We tried that, until 1956. We had a turnpike built in Kansas that ended at the Oklahoma border, because Oklahoma didn't have the money, until Eisenhower passed the legislation and the Federal Government could invest. They want to go back to those good old days. And then they prattle on about, well, these are just government jobs, government. They hate government. No, they're not government jobs. The government does not build bridges; the government does not build transit systems; the government does not build highways, gentlemen. They don't build any of those things. We go out and contract through the States for the lowest qualified bidders under Buy America requirements to build these projects with American workers and American products. So let's stop all this nonsense on the Republican side of the aisle about the government can't create jobs. The investments the government makes can create jobs in the private sector. We have an infrastructure that's falling apart. The President wants to rebuild it. The Senate even wants to rebuild it on a bipartisan basis. But, no, the Republicans in the House of Representatives have stopped forward progress on this legislation, forgoing potentially millions of jobs. It's a shame. I only hope that the Senate and the President can prevail on this issue. I thank the gentleman for bringing this to the attention of the House.

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. May I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself 3 minutes. Again, we're failing to discriminate between investment and consumption. The Republicans were all for consumptive tax cuts, i.e., give people the money, they'll spend it on consumer goods, that will somehow put people back to work, as opposed to investing in the future of our country. That's what I'm talking about here. It's interesting that they're on the wrong side from the Chamber of Commerce, the Association of General Contractors, and other groups that are incredibly generous to them during the campaign season who think they're very wrongheaded with this amendment. This isn't fancy language. I have the statistics from the Department of Transportation. Over the next year, the Federal Government is legally obligated for past construction projects authorized under law to pay $38.8 billion to the States. This amendment would say we can spend no more than $37.5 billion in the coming year. That means we cannot even meet our legal obligations for past construction which will be completed by October 1. That means an end to all Federal investment in transportation in this country on October 1 for the next year. It's not fancy language. It's a fact. It comes from the Congressional Budget Office, which the Republicans control, and the Department of Transportation, which the Obama administration controls. It's pretty much the consensus in the business community, the Chamber of Commerce, the Association of General Contractors, and everybody else. This would mean an end to investment for 1 year. That's a minimum of 1.6 million jobs lost. It's an incredible lost opportunity for the future of our kids and grandkids. You need to understand the difference between--you're supposedly the party of business. It's like people borrow money when they're in business if they have a good investment to make, if they can make their company more competitive. We can make our country more competitive if we invest in our transportation infrastructure. If we neglect it and people have to detour around the 150,000 bridges that are weight- limited and about to collapse like the one in Minnesota, if they have to detour around the 40 percent of the deteriorated national highway system, if people can't get to work or get killed like they did here in Washington, D.C., on a deficient mass transit system because we have a $70 billion backlog, and all of these investments, when made by the private sector, for the private sector, and for the people of America, are made in America. And you would defer instead to more tax cuts. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. I would point out that the Senate, the proposed Senate bill, which we could pass tonight, if we call people back, or tomorrow, or next week if we stayed in town to work, but we have breaks every other week now--39 legislative days until the election. America doesn't have any problems. We don't need to be here. Right? Come on. But the bottom line is the Senate bill would not create a penny of new debt and would fund current levels of investment, which are not what we need; but we could get by with that for 2 years until we figure out a way to make more robust investments. The gentleman would reduce that investment to zero, zero, not exaggeration. That's the Congressional Budget Office--zero. No Federal spending for transit, no Federal spending for highways next year. That's hundreds of thousands, millions, probably a million jobs, probably 1.6 million, we would sacrifice on the altar of what? Again, back to the principle, investment consumption. Certainly you can understand that on your side of the aisle. It's been a Republican tradition to invest in America, to invest in a more efficient transportation system for America, to make us more competitive in the world, to move our people and our goods more efficiently, to avoid importing foreign fuel and all the other things we have to do with an inefficient system. This would defy all that and say, no, United States of America, we're not going to invest in our national transportation system. We're going to devolve that to the 50 States. We're going to go back to 1956 when one State decides to make an investment and the other State doesn't and the road ends at the border. I can't understand what this is all about. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The language limits the funding out of the highway trust fund, including the mass transit account for Federal aid highway and transit programs, to amounts that do not exceed $37.5 billion, about a third of the cost of the continuing war in Afghanistan, which I would like to bring to a close. But the existing obligations of the Federal Government for past construction, we reimburse States once the project is done, transit project, highway project, bridge project, done, we reimburse them. We don't pay them in advance. Our current obligations for the next year are $38.8 billion. So, if we limit the outlays to $37.5 billion, and we owe $38.8 billion to the States when they deliver their completed contracts in the coming year, that means we would have negative spending on Federal investments in transportation and infrastructure. While competitive nations around the world are investing dramatically to more efficiently move goods and people, we would spend less than zero. I don't know how we spend less than zero, but that's what this amendment would do. You keep prattling on about the Obama stimulus. I voted against it. I was one of the few Democrats who did. I voted against it not because of investment in infrastructure, but because it didn't invest in infrastructure. The President talked about it. Larry Summers hated infrastructure. Timmy Geithner hates infrastructure. Old-school Jason Furman, all his advisers, they hate it. Seven percent of the money we borrowed was invested in infrastructure. Seven percent of that $800-some billion dollars. And guess what? I can justify that borrowing because I can say to my kids and my grandkids, We built that bridge, we built that transit system, we built that highway, and you're still using it, and it made America more competitive. But over 40 percent was tax cuts. He adopted the Republican approach. How many jobs did the tax cuts create? Nada, zero, none. You guys want to do more tax cuts, and you don't want to do any investment. That's what this would lead us to. You want to continue the Bush tax cuts--all of them--and you want to invest less than zero in Federal infrastructure. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, give me four, maybe. I did not mean to direct the remark to you. It was a generic statement out of concern.

Mr. DeFAZIO. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate and I certainly do respect the gentleman from Georgia, and he is a gentleman, but let's get a few things straight here. We're not talking about government jobs. We're talking about private sector jobs. The Federal Government does not build bridges. The Federal Government does not restore the condition of our highways. The Federal Government does not build transit vehicles or invest in transit systems. What the Federal Government does is to invest with strong ``buy America'' provisions to the best low-cost bidders to make and restore these products to make America more competitive. One of the things that underlays our system, the most basic thing--I mean, George Washington, he started to build canals; Abraham Lincoln, the transcontinental railway; Dwight David Eisenhower, the national highway system, which is now falling apart; and Ronald Reagan put transit into the highway trust fund, because we shouldn't neglect our urban areas and the needs of those people. The effect of the Broun amendment would be zero new Federal expenditures beginning October 1 next year on transit highways and other investments in transportation in this country. You can't get around that. That's what they're proposing. Because we have past obligations and the way they've written, this would limit us to only pay for past obligations, not any new obligations. They rattled on and prattled on a bit about the Obama stimulus. I voted against it. Why did I vote against it? Because 7 percent was transportation investment and 40 percent was tax cuts. And guess what? Those damn tax cuts didn't put anybody back to work, and they won't put anybody back to work in the future. That's all you guys want, is tax cuts. We need investment in our country. We need investment in moving people and goods. We need to compete with the world, and you don't want to do it. That's nuts. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Again, I wish this wasn't the dark of the night because this is a debate America should and would like to have. I'll reiterate: the United States Chamber of Commerce, with whom I frequently disagree, strongly opposes the Broun motion. We have a long list of groups, private sector business groups, who oppose this motion because this is not about government jobs. It's about private sector jobs. This is not about government gone wild. I wish it had been different. I wish that the stimulus had been half as large and 100 percent invested in the infrastructure of this country. We would have put millions more people back to work, and we would be on the road to recovery today. But instead, in deference to three Senate Republicans, the President, who wanted to look bipartisan, gave in to six times as much money for tax cuts as investment in infrastructure. And you want to blame infrastructure for the debt and the deficit, or the Obama failed stimulus? No, guys, no. It's your policies. We implemented them. And they don't work. We need to invest in the underpinnings of the country. When I was first elected to office, I served with a very, very conservative Republican, a guy named Bill Rogers on the Lane County Commission, and he would always say, Government's for two things. I'd say, What's that, Bill? He'd say, Roads and rope. Roads and rope. That is public safety and infrastructure. And there has been bipartisan agreement since George Washington that the Federal Government has an obligation to more efficiently move goods and people in this country. That's a long time before the incredibly competitive 21st century and what we're dealing with today with our huge trade deficits and everything else. That was George Washington. Abraham Lincoln, a Republic President: Build the transcontinental railway. Borrowed money to do it, by God. What do you know? And then, Dwight David Eisenhower, the National Highway System, National Defense Highway System. And Ronald Reagan: We need to invest in transit in our cities. And you would turn back the clock to pre-George Washington and say the 50 States--we didn't have States then, but, you know, you guys are going to at least allow us to keep federalism and that intact. But ``they should create somehow a Federal system. They should coordinate. They should raise the money. This is not an obligation of the Federal Government.'' This is not imaginary. This is not play. It's not ideology. It's simple hard numbers and facts. The number you would allow for the next year is deficient to the previous obligations. Now, I know you guys took us--and there are a number of you on that side who say, hey, it doesn't matter if the Government of the United States of America defaults. I think it does. I've been good for my debts. I think our country has got to be good for our debts. And I think we would be in a disaster if we weren't. So you can say that. Oh, yeah, you know, it's meaningless. It's facts.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Well, here we are in the dark of the night, voting on what is really, for the most part meaningless, which is a motion to instruct conferees, which is nonbinding. But in this case, since this might indicate the intent of the majority, should this motion prevail, this is a very significant discussion of the future of our country. Now, the gentleman talked about runaway spending, and we have some substantial agreement there. I was the lead Democratic sponsor on a balanced budget amendment which would force us to agree on ways to move toward fiscal responsibility, including both revenues, which that side denies, and expenditures. But when we look at expenditures, we need to discriminate between consumption and investment. Investment is transportation and infrastructure, giving the United States of America a 21st century, competitive infrastructure system to compete with the rest of the world. Our competitor nations get it. China's spending almost 10 percent of their gross domestic product on transportation investment so they can be more competitive, get their goods to market more quickly, more efficiently, more fuel efficiently, move their people more efficiently. India, 5 percent. Brazil, 6 percent. United States of America, a little bit less than 1 percent--and the gentleman's amendment would cut it to zero for the next year. Yes, zero. Now, how does that happen? Well, the fact is that as we incur obligations to spend money on infrastructure, there's a tail, there's a lag. We only reimburse the States once the projects are finished. And it happens that, over the next year, the past obligations to which the Federal Government has committed, would equal the amount of money to which the gentleman would limit us, which would mean no new investment in transportation and infrastructure in this country, despite the fact we have 150,000 bridges on the Federal system that are at the point of collapse or need substantial rehabilitation. We have 40 percent of the miles on the national highway system that don't just need an overlay; they need to be dug up. They need to be totally rebuilt. And a $70 billion backlog on our transit system. That's the 19th and 20th century system, let alone a 21st century transit them. And guess what? If we make these investments with the ``Buy America'' requirements, which many on that side of the aisle are opposed to, we would put millions to work in this country. So we are, on this side, fighting for more investment. There are many on that side fighting for reduced investment. But this motion would actually propose zero, zero investment for the next year in transportation and infrastructure in America, with the deteriorating system. And that's somehow fiscally prudent. The gentleman talked about the Chamber of Commerce. Kind of interesting because actually I have a letter dated June 5, pretty recent, from the Chamber of Commerce: Passing transportation reauthorization legislation is a concrete step Congress and the administration can take right now to support job, economic productivity without adding to the deficit. The Chamber strongly opposes the Broun amendment, the motion to instruct conferees, and urges you to vote against this effort to slash funding for highways, transit, and safety programs. The Chamber may consider including votes on or in relation to this Broun amendment to instruct in our annual how they voted score card. That's good. I might end up at 5 percent or 10 percent because I am going to oppose it. A lot of time I'm kind of zero with the Chamber. So that's good. They get it. There's a long list of businesses and others that are opposed to this amendment. They understand for America to compete in the modern 21st century world we need an up-to-date transportation system. We don't have it, and the 20th century system we have, the legacy of Dwight David Eisenhower, a Republican President, is falling apart. At the levels the gentleman would mandate with this motion to instruct, according to the Congressional Budget Office, there would be zero new investment in the coming year. That is hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, opportunities lost. Now, I understand that on their side of the aisle they're having a very robust debate--I didn't bring my poster tonight--about the issue of devolution. And devolution is a theory that the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in national transportation policy. It should be delegated to the 50 States, and they should be responsible for paying for it. Well, guess what? We had that system until 1956. Dwight David Eisenhower and the surface transportation legacy he gave us with the national highway system. And I have a great poster--I wish I'd brought it--which is a great photo from the air of the new, brand new, spanking new, beautiful new Kansas Turnpike, 1956. And guess what? It ends kind of abruptly, and you go, wow, what's that line? Why does it end there? Well, that was a farmer's field in Oklahoma, because Oklahoma said, well, we'll build our section too. We'll have a new, coordinated thing. But they said, well, we don't have the money, and they couldn't do it. And it wasn't done until the Eisenhower bill was adopted and we had a national investment in a national transportation highway system. They want to go back to the good old days, a 50-State system funded by the 50 States that's disconnected. So freight comes into L.A., which is going to all of the Western United States, well, even some of it further to the east, maybe, probably not all the way to Georgia, who knows. Some of it. And well, I guess California would have to pay for moving all the freight for the rest of the country. Well, maybe they're not going to do that, and maybe the other States aren't going to do that under this kind of new, bizarre theory of devolution. We need a 21st century, efficient, competitive, world-class national transportation system. The bill that the Senate passed won't get us there. I would vote for it. Won't get us there. The bill that was proposed on the Republican side of the aisle, which they couldn't even get out of conference, would move us backwards. This bill would take us back to essentially, not quite even Third World status because Third World countries are investing more of their GDP in transportation and infrastructure than us. It would be Fourth World, formerly First World, vaulting over everybody else saying, hey, we're just going to let it fall apart. We're going to leave it up to the 50 States, and maybe they can get it together for a national system. Maybe they can't. This is nuts. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for one second.

Mr. DeFAZIO. This is reality. Invest in America. Why do you hate this country so much?

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I have an amendment at the desk.