[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10101-10102]
[From the U.S. 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. There's a transportation agreement rumored to be in 
the works that would be shortsighted in the extreme if these rumors 
prove to be accurate. Our problem was created because for years 
Congress and the last two administrations have been unwilling to deal 
meaningfully with the large gap of funding for transportation created 
because we rely on an outmoded funding system based on the number of 
gallons of fuel consumed. With more efficient gas and diesel vehicles 
augmented by more hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and electric cars, the 
transportation trust fund is locked into an inevitable downward spiral. 
Like the looming Social Security deficit, the longer we wait, the worse 
it will get.
  Not this year, but over the next few years, we should temporarily 
increase and then replace the gas tax with a system that is based on 
the amount of road use. The new legislation should be laying the 
foundation for this transition. Unfortunately, it doesn't.
  The rumored agreement would also take us backward on enabling 
alternative modes of transportation. In the last 20 years of 
transportation reform we've used enhancement funding to get more out of 
the transportation projects. These include long-neglected and wildly 
popular bike and pedestrian safety programs such as Safe Routes to 
School. In a recent Princeton survey, 83 percent of the public wanted 
these programs maintained or the funding increased. They place an 
emphasis on intermodalism so that transportation modes work together 
and minimize direct conflict between truckers, rail, and commuters that 
can paralyze not just transportation but transportation planning.
  From what I hear, efforts to provide incentives to ``fix it first'' 
are being undercut. It's never as popular to maintain what you've got 
in face of the drumbeat of a few focused special interests for a new 
particular project.

[[Page 10102]]

But ``fixing it first'' creates more transportation jobs, provides more 
safety, alleviates congestion and pollution, and has more overall 
economic impact. And it, of course, alleviates long-term pressure to 
create more roads that we can't adequately maintain.
  The bill before us also misses an opportunity to reform the system to 
have more performance-based environmental protections. We absolutely 
can make the process work better and faster. But the answer is not to 
gut the protections, which will only create more conflict and 
ultimately more delays. Projects take more time when they're not done 
right, when citizens are not involved with the plan, and the myriad of 
interests aren't working together. Involving the public in the planning 
process works.
  I'll never forget a conversation with a very conservative Republican 
mayor of Phoenix, who told me that it was only when they got the 
citizens working together on a balanced transportation program of 
transit and roads that they were able to get the resources and the 
momentum to go forward.
  I will be extremely disappointed if the legislation shatters the 
coalition that I have been working for years to develop for the big 
picture, the big programs, and proper funding that's going to be 
necessary if we're going to be successful. It will be wrong if we have 
a scaled-down 2-year extension that will make it harder to give the 
American public what they need, adequate resources that are sustainable 
over time, more economic opportunity, and more construction and 
maintenance employment.
  A good transportation program will protect the environment, enhance 
the quality of life, making our communities more livable and our 
families safer, healthier and more economically secure.

                          ____________________