[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 163 (Tuesday, November 3, 2015)]
[House]
[Page H7394]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRANSPORTATION BILL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I started last week in Dallas, Texas,
working with people across the country, but especially from Texas,
dealing with transportation needs and their requirements for balanced
transportation by pedestrians, streetcar, and especially light rail.
Dallas has the most extensive light-rail system in the country. I ended
my week in New York City, in Brooklyn, where this vast sprawling
economic engine, home to 20 million people in the metropolitan area,
was dealing with their transportation needs.
Virtually all of these people, whether from Brooklyn, Texas, or
around the country, are in agreement with what they need going forward,
an important part of which is a renewal and strengthening of the
Federal transportation partnership.
I was pleased to see that we are moving ahead with discussion of the
basic framework produced by our friends on the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee. I commend Mr. Shuster and Mr. DeFazio for
producing a bill that is quite strong under these difficult
circumstances. It does preserve the basic framework and continue to
make improvements not just around the edges. There are potential
breakthrough provisions in technology in transportation that could
truly be transformational.
It is disappointing, however, that the bill flatlines important bike
and pedestrian funding, something that is vitally needed in Houston,
Indianapolis, Seattle, here in our Nation's Capital, in suburban
Maryland, and communities all across the country.
The lack of balance in this transportation funding is unfortunate.
But I am hoping, through the amendment process and the work between the
two Chambers, if it proceeds, that we will be able to correct it.
The basic problem is, of course, we continue to tiptoe around the
obvious solution to our transportation funding crisis. Our
transportation partnership is compromised with our State, local, and
private sector partners because we pretend that we can meet 2015
transportation needs with 1993 dollars, the last time we raised the gas
tax. The refusal to do what Ronald Reagan did in 1982 and the refusal
to do what six red Republican States have already done this year--
Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota, Georgia--raising the gas
tax, creates unnecessary difficulties.
The majority of States have raised their revenues over the last 4
years for transportation, and a review of the politicians involved with
making these decisions found that those who voted for the revenue
increases were actually reelected at a higher percentage than those who
voted ``no.''
This bill is a well-intended statement with good structure and
innovation; but until we have meaningful, long-term, predictable
funding, it is only a well-intended statement. We continue the
uncertainty that bedevils people at the State and local levels; and the
big projects--multistate, multimodal, multiyear projects--need
certainty.
The minor cost increase of a few cents per day for families would be
offset by the dramatic plunge in gasoline prices and offset even more
through the cost to families for damage to their vehicles of over $500
a year now because of poor road conditions and almost $1,000 a year
lost due to congestion. These are real costs that we are inflicting on
American families every day unnecessarily.
Raising the gas tax and providing stable, meaningful funding for
transportation will create millions of family-wage jobs all across the
country while we get America unstuck and strengthen communities large
and small.
Mr. Speaker, one of the positive elements in this bill that we are
discussing is Vision Zero, which asks us to plan for a world where
there are no traffic fatalities, a goal that is so important to strive
for as we continue to kill 32,000 people a year on our highways and
countless more who are injured.
Setting our goal high with Vision Zero is the sort of bold step we
need, but we should not have a Vision Zero for new revenue. That is not
bold. That is not courageous. That doesn't get the job done.
I look forward to this debate over the next couple of days. I look
forward to having Members of Congress consider their alternatives. What
are they going to do to make sure we can rebuild and renew this great
country?
This used to be an area of tremendous bipartisan cooperation,
leadership, and accomplishment for Congress. I hope it can be so again
as we turn to transportation this week. The American public would
welcome such a development, and certainly they deserve it.
____________________