[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 8]
[House]
[Page 11424]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this is a big day on Capitol Hill. The 
Iranian agreement has been signed. Hopefully, we will all have a chance 
to study it and think through the implications of this historic event, 
but the legislative clock is ticking down on another area. We have only 
10 legislative days left this month before we face another 
transportation funding cliff.
  The expectation now is that there will be a 34th short-term 
transportation extension that we have faced since our last, meaningful 
6-year reauthorization. People are scrambling for another short-term 
funding source to keep us going for the next few months that targets, 
presumably, $8 billion to $11 billion to get us through the end of the 
year.
  This is actually worse than no solution at all because it perpetuates 
the uncertainty, the crisis mentality, the inability of State and local 
governments that rely on this Federal partnership to supply 
approximately one-half of the capital expenditures for our surface 
transportation.
  This uncertainty comes at a time when our bridges, roads, and transit 
systems are all in serious areas of disrepair. We are desperately in 
need of bigger, longer-term projects.
  It is a myth that somehow we can't afford to take action. The public 
is paying now hundreds of dollars a year in damage to each of their 
vehicles, costs far in excess of a few cents a day for a gas tax 
increase.
  American commuters and businesses are suffering over $120 billion a 
year in costs related to congestion, costs directly related to 
inadequate infrastructure. People are tying themselves in knots when 
there is a simple, obvious solution.
  As pointed out in a delightful op-ed in The Washington Post on July 
9, we should simply follow Ronald Reagan's example and fill up 
America's highway trust fund.
  They ask how the famously tax-cutting conservative President raised 
the Federal user fee--the gas tax--on motor fuels 125 percent. While he 
was concerned about general taxation, he was absolutely comfortable 
with having user fees cover specific costs like the fuel tax for 
aviation or inland waterway fees.
  He worked with Republicans in Congress, who demonstrated significant 
support for user fee increases. He then gave his Secretary of 
Transportation, Drew Lewis, free hand to lay the groundwork.
  Finally, when he decided to support a gas tax increase, his 
Department of Transportation swung into action, as did Ronald Reagan 
himself. He gave an eloquent speech November 29, 1982, on Thanksgiving 
Day, calling on Congress to come back into session and approve the gas 
tax increase.
  We have the opportunity for such leadership today. My proposed gas 
tax increase, H.R. 680, is supported by all the major interest groups: 
unions, the Chamber of Commerce, truckers, AAA, transit, local 
government, environmentalists, engineers, and contractors.
  The same approach has been used in 20 States since 2012 to raise 
transportation revenues. Six States have raised the gas tax already 
this year, six red Republican States. It is simple. My bill would 
provide the money necessary to actually pass a 6-year bill. It would be 
sustainable so we wouldn't be back in the same pickle in a year, 2 
years, or 5 years.
  Finally, it is dedicated so people can count upon it to implement the 
steps necessary to rebuild and renew America's infrastructure.
  It is time to stop temporizing, and it is time to act. Filling the 
highway trust fund with borrowed money inadequate to do the job but 
enough to avoid responsibility is not a solution that we can be proud 
of, especially when America is ready and Ronald Reagan pointed the way.

                          ____________________