[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 12]
[House]
[Page 16345]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, the House Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee will consider a surface transportation 
reauthorization. Unfortunately, calling it a ``reauthorization'' 
doesn't make it so.
  This legislation calls for a 6-year period of reauthorization and 
hopes to be funded for 3 years, but it doesn't actually provide a 
single dime of revenue from the highway trust fund. It is simply an 
empty shell.
  It really doesn't have to be this hard. There is a single solution 
that is supported by everyone outside of Capitol Hill, one that has 
been employed by six red Republican States already this year and 
championed by Ronald Reagan when he was President: raise the gas tax. 
Our problems are that we are trying to fund 2015 infrastructure with 
1993 dollars--the last time we raised the Federal gas tax.
  I have a bill that will accomplish this fact. H.R. 680 provides that 
assurance and certainty by phasing in a gas tax increase over 3 years. 
It will permit us to fully fund a 6-year reauthorization for the first 
time since 1998 without resorting to gimmicks. It is cosponsored by 
over three dozen House Members, but, more importantly, it enjoys the 
broadest base of support for any major piece of legislation before 
Congress.
  Is there any other bill of any significance that is endorsed by the 
U.S. Chamber and the AFL-CIO, countless business and trade 
associations, as well as individual unions, the American Trucking 
Association, representing that industry, and auto users, represented by 
AAA?
  The answer is ``no.''
  The coalition includes bicyclists, engineers, local government, 
transit agencies--virtually anyone who builds, maintains, or depends 
upon our transportation system.
  For all the rhetoric about ``strengthening the economy,'' this will 
be the one proven way of putting several million people to work at 
family-wage jobs while it reduces the deficit and strengthens our 
communities from coast to coast. Every State, every metropolitan area, 
every rural region of America would benefit both by the transportation 
improvements as well as the economic impact this work will create.
  This has been recognized by independent analysts, editorials in major 
newspapers, and in small newspapers all across the country. There 
really is no controversy.
  Indeed, in the over two dozen States that have raised transportation 
revenue since 2012, the legislators who voted for more transportation 
revenue got reelected by a higher percentage than the legislators who 
voted against it. It is broadly supported, not politically 
controversial, and is desperately needed.
  I am glad my colleagues were able to reach a compromise on the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and put forward some 
interesting ideas. It gives a hint of what could happen if we had a 
real funding source, which we don't; and the bill being marked up 
raises more questions, therefore, than it answers. Even if the House 
were to embrace it unanimously, we would still be where we were 3 
months ago, 6 months ago, and many times before that.
  We are facing another short-term extension--this will be the 35th--
and are providing zero assurance or long-term certainty to the many who 
rely on our transportation system. No country became great building its 
infrastructure 8 months at a time.
  We can have markups and pass a reauthorization shell on the floor of 
the House; but until we embrace H.R. 680 and raise the gas tax, finding 
revenue that is sustainable, dedicated, and big enough to do the job, 
we are still going to be spinning our wheels; and America will be 
stuck.

                          ____________________