Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, Friday marked the farewell to ``Morning Edition's'' Bob Edwards. PBS's ``Morning Edition'' has become the signature program for public radio across America, giving expression to things about which Americans care the most: war and peace, arts and culture, athletics, the dramas large and small that shape our everyday lives, and the global events that profoundly affect the way Americans look at themselves and others.

For 24\1/2\ years, Bob Edwards has been the voice of ``Morning Edition.'' Two

generations have grown up with him, four have been profoundly influenced. His has been a voice of civility, reason, thoughtful exchange, and good humor, exactly why most of us are not just devoted fans of public broadcasting, but heavily dependent upon it.

Thank you, Bob Edwards, for almost a quarter century of enriching our lives. The last show was poignant and insightful, everything we have come to expect from you. With profound sadness and regret at your departure, we have great expectations about what you will do next.

Best wishes, Bob Edwards.

Mr. Speaker, today in a couple of moments the House of Representatives will vote on extending the Surface Transportation Act. The hang-up? The President's threat to veto a bill that is not a 10 percent cut in transportation funding over the next 6 years, even though his own Department of Transportation says that we should be spending half again as much as he proposes.

Earlier the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan bill that would move us in the right direction. The Senate overwhelmingly approved on a bipartisan basis even a larger bill. This is supported by the broadest coalition in the history of infrastructure in this country, from the Sierra Club to the Chamber of Commerce.

Now is the time for the House to reaffirm its strong support, resist calls for cuts that will set America back for the next 6 years, so we will not have to play catchup for a generation.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill. I appreciate his eloquence and the leadership that we have had from our committee.

The gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Oberstar), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Petri), and the gentleman from Illinois (Ranking Member Lipinski) have worked hard to keep faith with this body, to deliver a transportation bill that is right sized for America's needs.

In that effort, they have kept faith with the broadest coalition we have seen in the history of infrastructure development. We have everybody from the Chamber of Commerce to the Sierra Club, the bicyclists, to the people who put down asphalt, to the women who are frankly the single most aggressive, articulate, and I think intimidating spokespeople, the Women's Garden Club of America, all are arrayed behind the principle that this country should invest in the infrastructure that we need for today and for tomorrow.

Our committee has responded under the leadership of the gentlemen I just mentioned. We have worked with the other body. It is not what America needs, but it is in keeping with the realities that we can get through this Congress. It is a concession to the administration, although what we will settle for is far less than what we know America needs. We have scaled down. The administration to this point is saying that unless there is a 10 percent cut in real transportation spending over the next 6 years, they will not let it pass.

That is unconscionable. We have an opportunity to draw upon money that Americans have invested in trust funds. We have an opportunity to generate more tax dollars by this strategic investment. We have an opportunity not just to keep faith with our colleagues and with this broad coalition; we have an opportunity to keep faith with the American public. We have bridges that are crumbling. We have economic opportunities in our cities. We have a chance to take this coalition that is alive and well in every State, every region, every city to bring it together with local and private resources that will turn the economy around. It will make our communities more livable, it will make our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

We have reached the point, if we cannot, with this extension, reach agreement for this minimally-sized package that the House and the Senate is working on, then I think we ought to just admit the wheels have fallen off, extend it for another 8 months until we get past the election. Then, maybe, we can act like grownups and give Americans the transportation bill they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, fixing the ``marriage penalty'' and increasing the earned income tax credit (EITC) for low-income families are important and long-overdue steps toward tax fairness. I support both measures but wish that Congress had made reducing the tax burden for dual-income middle-class families and those most in need of tax relief its top priority 3 years ago, instead of focusing tax relief primarily on the wealthiest Americans.

Improving the fairness of our tax code is a laudable goal. The Bush tax policies passed by Congress have added significantly to our national deficit. Congress need not continue to exacerbate the budget while providing reasonable tax relief. As this legislation is written, over $100 billion will be added to our national deficit. The Democratic Substitute, which I support, instead would pay for marriage penalty relief and an increase in the EITC by reducing tax cuts available to couples earning more than one million dollars a year. The Democratic proposal provides a more responsible manner of providing tax fairness that does not further burden future generations with more debt.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, the future of our country is rooted in respect for, and understanding of, the United States Constitution. On May 1, more than 1,200 students from across the United States will gather in Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the We the People, the Citizen and the Constitution competition. This outstanding program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I am pleased that 40 students from Grant High School in Portland, Oregon, will be representing our State. These scholars have worked diligently to reach the national finals, gaining a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. Grant High School, my neighborhood school, has won twice in the last 4 years.

As we celebrate these young scholars, we should keep in mind that it would not be possible without the dedicated teachers led by Diane Thelen-Sager and their advisers led by Jim Westwood. I wish these young constitutional experts the best of luck at the We the People national finals. They truly represent the future leaders of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be here this evening on the 34th anniversary of Earth Day. Now, the pollsters tell us that the environment may not be the very first thing that springs to people's minds when asked about the most important issues of the day, but we find that when you probe just a little bit, it is clear that that really does not give the whole picture, because the environment is more than just an issue, it is an umbrella, it is an overview, it is a prism through which Americans see the things that touch their lives most intimately.

When you get those Americans starting to talk about what matters to them most, we hear things like clean air and clean water, a secure energy future, a quality of life for their families. In dealing with the children, one in four admissions, we know in urban areas, are for children with respiratory problems to emergency rooms. When you start Americans down that path, they do not stop talking about it.

If we look at the hundreds of millions of dollars that State and local communities have voted to increase their money spent on water quality and open space, in community after community we see demonstrated concern and action at the local level.

One of the things that characterized the first Earth Day and the activities that followed it was a bipartisan spirit of commitment to improving environmental quality overall and in very specific terms in communities across the country.

I am proud to spring from an Oregon tradition that was decidedly bipartisan and environmental. My first governmental position was an appointment by then-Governor Tom McCall, a legendary Republican in our State, to the Livable Oregon Committee. I was privileged to serve in the Oregon Legislature a third of a century ago when we enacted the first comprehensive land use planning legislation of any State in the Union, and it was the product of bipartisan leadership and concern. On the Federal level, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were enacted during Republican administrations with bipartisan leadership.

Unfortunately for our success in protecting the environment, on this Earth Day we are seeing that the bipartisan tradition of environmental leadership is being abandoned for short-term political advantage catering to powerful special interests. We can take, for example, the sad saga of President Bush's efforts to weaken the Clean Air Act, documented in a fascinating article in The New York Times Magazine 3 weeks ago.

But it is something that Members of this Congress are familiar with, as we have struggled with this administration under the New Source Review Program, which was requiring old power plants to install pollution controls. Instead, this administration has radically transformed the Nation's Clean Air Act quietly, trying to do it under the radar screen by way of regulatory changes and bureaucratic detectives. And now, older polluting power plants that should have been cleaned up decades ago have been given essentially a free pass, allowed to continue to spew forth harmful pollution and global-warming gases into the air.

Mr. Speaker, it is frustrating to the extreme to see what is happening in terms of global climate change. The administration has been challenged just 2 weeks ago by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group of 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, who are concerned about how this administration is turning science on its head, shifting, changing, and obscuring, when, in fact, the role of science should be one that is a constructive one to help us promote environmental protection.

We are seeing at this point the situation where these environmental threats are increasing on the global scale, in terms of global climate change, global warming. We have a generation of Americans today who may be the first generation where there will be no glaciers in Glacier Park, and who may witness the eradication of polar bears in their natural habitat.

But it is not an obscure activity that is going to occur in remote reaches of wilderness or in the Arctic netherland. No American is immune to the deadly consequences of the actions of the last 100 years of assaulting our environment and our government's inaction in some of the simplest common-sense steps.

No one in America will be immune from global warming. It is not just the disappearance of permafrost in areas of the Arctic tundra, the buckling of roads and the erosion of coastline we are seeing in our 49th State, it is the increasing temperatures, rising ocean levels, extreme weather events, and storm surges in coastal areas put all Americans at risk.

We are a rich country, and much of our territory is in temperate areas. Imagine what will happen in poor countries around the world already prone to drought, or to tens of millions of poor people in Bangladesh that will be threatened with drowning by rising sea levels and storm surges.

But there is good news for us to consider on this Earth Day, and a growing consensus of Americans across the country, contrary to the approaches of this administration. They want us to take simple, common- sense steps today to clean up the air, slow global warming and protect our public lands. One simple step is simply to keep in place the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act and other landmark legislation. We have hundreds of Federal rules, regulations and efforts at rollback that demonstrate that we are actually having initiatives by the leadership in this Congress and by the administration for environmental activities that, rather than making the air cleaner, the water more pure, will actually put us at risk.

Today we need to stick to some of the fundamental underlying environmental legislation we have got. It will be a cleaner America, a healthier environment than if we were to follow some of the so-called reforms of this administration.

Another critical step is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. The reality is now that our best estimates are that U.S. production of oil is going to peak in 2008, and there will be a decline of 18 percent over 20 years. It is not happening because of environmental protections, it is because we simply do not have enough oil. However, according to the Energy Information Agency, we are going to be skyrocketing in terms of demand, over 40 percent in the next 20 years, which will increase our demand on foreign oil. Under the current situation, placing our reliance on unstable areas is simply not a good strategic undertaking.

I am pleased that the likely standard-bearer for our party, Senator John Kerry, has put on the table a wide range of environmental initiatives, including fuel efficiency for automobiles, one that could be good for the American consumer, for the environment, and indeed for our auto industry.

Right now there are three alternatives for the American consumers who want hybrid vehicles, but they are, sadly, all Japanese. General Motors has announced it is bringing pickups on the market that will improve gas mileage, but that is the tip of the iceberg. There is far more we can do.

I am pleased that I have been joined by a number of colleagues here who have ideas to lend to this discussion this afternoon, but I want to just put on the table the notion that the most important thing the Federal Government can do for new initiatives is to model the behavior it expects of other Americans. If the Federal Government would simply clean up after itself, establish high standards for the hundreds of millions of square feet it has in offices, the tens of millions of acres that it manages, its vast enterprises, it could have a transformational effect. There are opportunities to discuss this further, but I want to turn to some of my colleagues that are here.

I note I have been joined by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who is charged with one of the most difficult tasks in Congress, and that is providing a representation for the people in the District of Columbia, who, although they are taxed, although they are under the control of the Federal Government more than citizens of any State in the Union, they have not been graced with the opportunity of a voting Member of Congress. I must say it is astounding the work that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) does in terms of providing leadership on a wide variety of areas, and not the least of which has to do with the environment.

I have visited with the gentlewoman in areas around American University where we are still struggling 85 years after World War I with the consequence of failing to clean up after ourselves with the chemical weapons that were tested inside the District of Columbia. The gentlewoman is fighting for a wide variety of interests.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) to discuss the impacts that she is facing in the District of Columbia and some of the noteworthy efforts she is leading.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and for her leadership. I hope that I will see the time here in Congress where the Anacostia becomes a model for the country in the backyard of Congress about how to do it right after, as she says, decades of abuse.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), who has been one of the most forceful voices in his short time in Congress for speaking out for the preservation of the environment, somebody who is deeply concerned and has focused in on what is happening with the rollbacks and somebody who comes from a State that is facing some of the most unique environmental challenges that he has been a leader in long before he came to Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) for his statement, and I appreciate his eloquence in terms of looking at the big picture and the impacts that people are facing.

The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), his fellow Southwestern colleague, has himself a rich family tradition dealing with these issues and continues that on the Committee on Resources today and being a vigilant spokesperson on a wide range of environmental issues.

I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico if he has some comments to share with us this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement. We were just last night at the National Parks Conservation Association awards dinner, and we were reminded how these issues do not have partisan boundaries that are required, that it unites us as a country, that it spoke to opportunities that were different, hearkening back to the context that he offered up.

I am hopeful that we can embrace the spirit of the history that he has given us that will help guide and inform some of our decisions here, and I appreciate his leadership in trying to make that happen.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate, as we are referring to some history, we are joined by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), someone I have been privileged to work with on issues dealing with water resources, the reform of some of the opportunities for the Corps of Engineers and how Congress works with the Corps of Engineers; and I note not only is he a leader in issues that deal with environment and uniting sports people of varied interests of his State but I think appropriate the legacy of that marvelous State of Wisconsin, and 34 years ago it was Senator Gaylord Nelson who helped launch us on this path.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman for observations he might make that will help us focus on what we are celebrating here today.

We appreciate your hard work and leadership in putting this spotlight on Senator Nelson.

We have been joined by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), who I note, no small note of irony, the President was celebrating Earth Day at a location that the gentleman and I have visited in the past in Wells, Maine, as we have been doing work environmentally. I did not know if the gentleman had any thoughts or observations based on that experience today in his district.

I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman.

I appreciate the gentleman's illustrations. We were on this floor earlier this week talking about the long-term budget implications which will guarantee that these unfortunate, ill-advised and unacceptable cuts are the tip of the iceberg, and we are going to be looking at that for years to come unless we change the priorities of the administration or unless we change the administration.

We are reaching a conclusion here. We have three more of my colleagues. I think we have at least 4 minutes each for them. I will not take more of my time.

But I would turn, if I could, to my friend from California (Mr. Farr), who is here not just on Earth Day, but this week as a spokesman and a champion for ocean health and environment. It is a great juxtaposition, and I am happy to yield time for him to make some comments that would be appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) must feel no small sense of satisfaction. I know that he was the driving force behind the first ocean's conference with President Clinton in his beautiful district in Monterey, bringing home how important this is to all of us. And I extend my deep appreciation for his leadership, insight, and patience.

Mr. Speaker, next there is the opportunity to hear from the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis). Although she has been a more recent arrival to Congress, she has distinguished herself as a Member of the California legislature, as a tireless champion of the environment, of dealing with the problems at home on the neighborhood level, and has carried that passion back here affecting Federal policies. I am happy to yield to her.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that there is very little likelihood that East Los Angeles will be forgotten with my colleague's eloquence, her insights, and her leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to turn to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), who has represented several congressional districts. He has distinguished himself with the wilderness and with energy and with thinking about how these pieces fit together for the future. I am honored to yield to him this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, with the approach this week of Earth Day, that will soon be followed by a flood of American planners coming into our city for their annual conference, I think it is an appropriate time for us to step back and think about what the Federal Government can do to make a difference for our environment.

With the help of those people who are involved with the planning community looking in the long term, there are a number of things we can do that are simple, commonsense, that will make our communities more livable, enhance the environment and, at the same time, create real value for American families.

The most important single step that we could undertake would be just for the Federal Government to model the behavior that we expect from the rest of America, whether it is local government, business, or individuals.

A simple proposition: let us have the Federal Government clean up after itself. In just one area, that of the Department of Defense, we do not know how many millions of acres are polluted with military toxins and unexploded ordnance. The estimates range from 10 million acres to 50 million acres or more; and at the rate we are going, it is going to take us hundreds of years to meet the Federal Government's obligation to clean up these messes; and at the rate we are going, frankly, we are creating more problems than we are cleaning up.

At a time when we are contemplating this next year giving the Department of Defense over $1 million a minute, it would seem to be a simple environmental expedient to give the men and women in uniform the tools to be able to do what they are equipped to do and what they want to do, which is leave the environment better than they found it. As the largest manager of infrastructure in the world, as the largest creator of Superfund sites in the United States, it would seem only right.

I have been profoundly impressed by the ability of men and women in the armed services to identify these problems; and when given the tools and the resources, they can solve any problem. Look what has happened in Iraq in terms of moving forward. I think our only problem there is we have not given the right tools and the right instruction, placing them in harm's way. We do not have to do that in the battle to clean up after the environment.

There is another simple step that can be taken and that is just for the Federal Government to be more environmentally sensitive to the way that it locates and manages its facilities, whether it is the post office which ought to obey local land use laws and zoning codes or it is the General Services Administration with over 300 million square feet of office scattered across the country. If the Federal Government, as the largest landlord, landowner and employer in the country, models best practices, the environments in our communities, large and small, would be better.

We have before us, pending final resolution, a transportation bill that has passed both the House and the Senate, albeit at different levels; and sadly, there were a few items that got shoe-horned into the transportation bill at the last minute in the House, a few bridges to nowhere, so to speak; but the vast majority of that legislation provides an important environmental framework for protecting land, for repairing crumbling infrastructure, to be able to strengthen communities and put thousands and thousands of people to work by Labor Day in every State across the country.

When it comes to energy, we are watching in our service stations every day it seems like that prices are going higher, $2, $2.25 a gallon. The American public understands that simple, commonsense, fuel efficiency improvements that have been mandated in the past, that this Congress and administration have refused to embrace for the future, would make a huge difference. Simply improving our fuel efficiency to the same level as American companies are doing to compete in the European market would enable us to save more gasoline than we would recover from the arctic wildlife refuge which most Americans know is the last place we ought to be drilling, rather than the first.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that Congress, in the weeks ahead, would focus on simple, commonsense steps to improve the environment. That is the single most important thing we can do to keep our commitments to Americans on Earth Day, making our communities more livable, our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding. I appreciate his leading these discussions on one of the most important issues that simply does make some people's eyes glaze over; but I think he has documented simple declarative sentences, and it does not have to be this hard.

It is very clear that we are on a path here to have a massive increase in the debt tax. We are, in fact, abandoning principles that some of our friends on the other side of the aisle have in the past at least given lip service to.

I came over to the other side of the aisle this evening to see if it felt different somehow, if the numbers added up differently. They do not. I think, in fact, the information that the gentleman has gotten with his staff, and referring to accepted experts, institutes, independent analyses, suggests that even the situation that he documented a moment ago that was calculated according to the official rules that CBO has to follow actually disguises the true depth of the problem that is being created.

I wonder if the gentleman has some information about what the people who are using the artificial rules that Congress has given to CBO, assuming some of these taxes are going to be expiring and never be renewed, I wonder if he has some information that independent analyses would offer up for what the long-term budget outlook is likely to be.

Mr. Speaker, just one other thing. I did have a few comments I wanted to share, but I wanted to get the context set here. Would the gentleman comment about what happens with the massive amount of extra Social Security that we are collecting. As the gentleman knows, Mr. Greenspan famously of late suggested that we might have to cut Social Security benefits along with making these tax cuts permanent.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's clarifying that because as disturbing as the previous chart was----

Talking about locking us into $500 billion up to maybe improve up to $350 or $370 billion and then trailing off again to that half trillion dollar level, what, in fact, if I understand what the gentleman is saying, that we are consuming, on top of that, all of the Social Security surplus; so actually it is approaching, over the life of what we can project with reasonable accuracy, a trillion dollars in ultimate debt compounded, this is added, year after year after year.

Mr. Speaker, I did want to commend the gentleman for taking the time to focus in on this critical element of why we are really hung up. The Republican House and the Republican Senate cannot really reconcile what they want to do with the

budget resolution because they are unable to agree amongst themselves about how far to extend these PAYGO rules.

I would like to say that I think anybody in America listening to what you brought forth here this evening needs to understand what the stakes are and why people should be rooting for the other body in extending this important principle across the board, spending as well as taxation.

I am of the opinion that this does not have to be a partisan issue. Like most Members, I was back in my district for 2 weeks, morning, noon and night, listening to people from all walks of life, and with particular attention on April 15, on tax day, and I found that the people understood what the gentleman is talking about at several levels.

Everybody would like dessert, a tax cut, but they understand that this budget is hemorrhaging red ink. They understand the debt tax that is already over $4,000 for a family of four right now, moving towards $7,000 in just a few years. But that is the tip of the iceberg, because if interest rates start to spike, and I agree with my colleague from North Carolina, it is miraculously not going to happen before election day, but as sure as we are standing here, they are going to be moving relentlessly upward next year. And, again, our colleague pointed out how much of this debt is in foreign hands, increasingly Chinese, where we lose control over people who are involved with our debt markets.

Mr. Speaker, I would just conclude with two points, because I agree with what the gentleman is saying, it resonates with me, and I am quite confident that it resonates on the part of most Americans who are dealing with this as a kitchen table issue. They would rather have their debt tax cut, reduce those deficits, than have a couple of dollars in a tax cut that really does not accrue to most average Americans.

I want to just indicate that there are two lines of argument that I find fully specious, one being that somehow this PAYGO concept, pay as you go, for expenditures of the budget or tax expenditures, is somehow biased against cutting the budget. I think if we require the people running around here who want to cut taxes to have to pay for it, it will actually make it more likely that spending will be cut, not less. I must confess that the gentleman's rule, as I read it, is agnostic as to whether taxes should be cut or not. It is just you pay for it.

I happen to want to cut the alternative minimum tax, which is creeping up on American families and is going to hit them like a sledgehammer over the course of the next couple of years. But I think, in fairness, people who care about that ought to be required to offset it in some fashion.

I appreciate the work the gentleman is doing and the opportunity to join the gentleman in this important conversation this evening.

Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague from Minnesota for advancing a concept of how we are going to increase capacity. We have deep concerns, I think all of us, that we are in an ultimate downward spiral in terms of the revenue from user fees that provide the resources we need for funding America's transportation future.

While we have refused to index these fees for inflation, we find that there are increasing demands and stresses that are being placed. Ultimately, we are going to have more fuel-efficient vehicles, and that means that we are not going to reduce at all the wear and tear on our highways, we are not going to reduce the demands of congestion, but we will over time reduce revenues.

Now, I appreciate what my colleague from Minnesota and my friend from the State of Washington are doing in terms of helping expand this window. This is an approach that we should explore. However, the approach that they bring to us today is unnecessarily narrow. It would restrict it exclusively to highway projects. That is why you have opposition from the Surface Transportation Policy Project. That is why, in January of this year, there was an extensive correspondence from APTA that was shared with our ranking members and the committee chair that deal with the problems inherent in this.

It is inconceivable that we would not want to have a balanced approach to solving transportation issues. As we have seen in State after State, people want balance.

In Phoenix, one the second highest per capita usage of automobiles in the country, they had problems with road-only initiatives. It was not until they came forward with a balanced transportation initiative that allowed use for transit as well as roads that it had the public support.

The proposal here would preclude what is going on right now in San Diego, a perfect example of how we can use tolling. In San Diego, there are currently 22,000 daily fast track automobile customers generating $2 million a year to pay for the program's operating costs, and they provide $1 million in support of commuter bus service in the I-15 corridor.

Now, I am not here to say that we do not need to expand road capacity. In many cases, we do. I am working to do that with some of the bottlenecks between our States of Oregon and Washington. But to say, as this amendment does, that if you are going to move in the area of other alternatives dealing with tolling, that you cannot use proven, successful initiatives that would add transit, that would add bus rapid transit, it is unnecessarily narrow, restrictive. It is not the best solution.

I tried to have this conversation with the gentleman and his staff, to have a comprehensive solution like we have under ISTEA, like we have under TEA LU, where communities are given the choice to design the best possible solution. I think we could move forward, but if we are going to have something that is narrow, restrictive and turning back to the past, which is actually going to reduce public support as well as reduce effectiveness, I do not think it is worthy of our support at this point. I very reluctantly oppose.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I wanted to follow up on what my colleagues have said.

I agree with the sentiment of what my friend from Georgia said; but, in fact, the amendment that he was supporting does not provide that balance and that flexibility. That is why this amendment is opposed by the Surface Transportation Policy Project, by STPP, by ASSHTO, by APTA, because it does not provide maximum flexibility.

If you have a congested corridor, like we have in the Portland metropolitan area, you need a balanced approach. We are exploring, and discussing, the potential use of tolling. I think tolling is something that should be studied; but if we approve the approach of the gentleman from Minnesota, it would not permit the use of the tolling for any transit-related alternative, buses or rail.

It would not allow the use of these revenues to deal with reconstruction. In many of our areas, we have problems of congestion and mobility because there are some facilities that are falling apart; but under this amendment, the toll revenues would not be available for the reconstruction of projects, just new lanes.

It is not just a case of providing new transit lanes. Every community that is dealing with congestion knows that you have to deal with how you get on and off the connections, the interchanges, the bridges, and this amendment would not permit that. It is just those lanes.

In many cases, if you increase capacity and you do not have resources around it, I will tell my colleagues, as 10 years as a public works commissioner and having worked in over 100 communities around this country, that is a prescription for disaster.

So I strongly suggest that the concept be refined so that it can have a balanced approach, and then it would be worthy of the support of this body.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It is quite clear with the dueling charts that are going on, there are very few, if any, Members of the assembly here who will actually know the impact on their States if this amendment is passed in terms of dollars and cents. But there are things that are very clear: one is that this has the effect of pulling the rug out from underneath the broadest coalition we have ever had developing infrastructure needs in this country. That would be tragic if all of a sudden we are going to be pitting the truckers versus the Sierra Club versus the bikers and the providers of concrete and asphalt and the historic preservationists. That would be wrong and it would have long-term, serious negative consequences for people that want a comprehensive approach to infrastructure.

I find no small amount of irony that for the people who are standing up in protest, the problem is it is self-inflicted. If we had before us the bill that the Senate passed overwhelmingly, that dedicates the trust fund balances, that does not rob money from transportation to deal with international corporate issues, we would have the resources available to put $3 billion for California, $2.5 billion for Texas, $1.6 billion for New York, $1.5 billion for the State of Florida and $1.1 billion for Georgia.

What we have done is place impossible demands on the committee leadership to parse this out in ways that are unrealistic. And approving this amendment is illusory. It is not going to make it any simpler. It is going to make it harder. They are not going to know what they end up with, and they are going to be fraying this coalition.

But if the Members are really concerned about imbalance, look at metropolitan areas most of us serve, and look at how little they get back on the dollar. It is far less than the State donor-donee. It is more serious, and our constituents back home ought to hold us accountable for that.

Mr. Chairman, while we are decompressing for a moment and in a congratulatory mode, I would add my congratulations as well, but I would have just one little footnote.

Before we are through today, there will be an opportunity for Members of this Chamber to make a vote towards the level that was crafted by our distinguished chairman and ranking member. We are not going to get the $375 billion yet; some day we will, but we will have a motion by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis) that will permit us to at least vote on the $318 billion that was approved by the other body. It has no new user fees or taxes on gas; it is fully paid for, and it includes money that Americans are already paying for transportation.

I sincerely hope that we will be able to have an ``aye'' vote for this motion to recommit to keep faith with the broadest coalition that we have seen supporting American transportation, allow not just an empty gesture, but a House standing up for the future of America's communities.

Mr. Speaker, we have extolled the leadership of our committee chair and ranking member and the subcommittee chair and ranking member. I think that is appropriate because they have taken a difficult task and have given us a good bill. But it falls far short of the needs that have been identified by our own Department of Transportation.

One of the reasons we have had the trauma about the donor-donee over the course of the last 2 weeks is simply because we are not right- sizing this bill. Every day we are losing the battle to congestion, pollution, and bridges that are crumbling faster than we can fix them. This motion will get us one-third of the way that was envisioned by our committee leadership. It is, in fact, paid for and it will provide extra money for States large like California, Texas and New York, small States; and more important than the money in this time of economic concern are the jobs.

We have seen the good work by the committee leadership and we have not really acknowledged the leadership of Speaker Hastert and Leader Pelosi who understand that the President is wrong to draw the line here for the first time in his administration to exercise fiscal responsibility, so to speak, at the needs of our infrastructure.

Now it is time for the leadership here. We on this floor have the opportunity to do our part as Members of Congress. We can vote for this motion to recommit. We can vote to make sure that the Federal Government is a better partner with our communities to make them more livable, to make our families safe, healthy and more economically secure.

I strongly urge support for the Davis motion.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak in support of what is the most important jobs and environmental bill of this session. Because of the structure that has been maintained under ISTEA, this legislation also is the most important tool for the preservation and revitalization of our communities.

This is an opportunity to give a balanced approach. In some cases, it is a need for repairing crumbling bridges. In some cases, it is new roads. In others, it is bike paths, transit, street cars, historic preservation. This legislation has a wide range of options that is available to America's communities, and it gives them the flexibility to use those tools.

Sadly, what it does not give them is enough resources really to meet the needs that have been identified by this administration and which have so ably been championed by the leadership of our committee.

There has been a lot of talk about the costs that are involved. We have documented time and time again that the American public is paying the price right now with increased pollution, with delays as a result of congestion, with load limits on bridges, with the lost opportunity for the economy, as our friend from Ohio mentioned, of several billion dollars lost just in the delay that we have reached to this point.

We all know that this investment in our communities is going to spur additional private sector and public investment. This bill will pay for itself many times over if we are only able to move it forward.

What we have seen, Mr. Chairman, has been the hard choices. In the last 24 hours there has been a great deal of controversy by some. In some cases, they are saying their States do not get back enough. In others, they are concerned that there are specific things that are not met. That is a product of not having a bill that is right-sized.

Our committee leadership brought forward and worked very hard to balance the safety, the equity, the environment and Members' requests. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) worked very hard to weave it together. But the fact is, at $275 billion, it is a very tenuous prospect and it may well crumble if we are not careful.

It was wrong for the President of the United States to draw a line here that he is going to veto his very first bill. I, frankly, do not think he will. It would be a tragedy for our communities, and I know that many of my Republican friends do not think that that is appropriate. I note that the Senate bill at $318 billion passed with over 70 votes. I do not think that this is the place to try to make the claim for fiscal responsibility. I have stood in this well and I have watched this House move forward legislation that frankly were not America's priorities. It is the wrong time to do that now.

I would suggest that this is a vote for America's future. We should keep faith with the broadest coalition of interests we have seen, from the Sierra Club to the Chamber of Commerce, from the bicyclists to the truckers, pass this bill and work to right-size it in the future, not bring it down.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me this time and permitting me to speak on this bill.

There are two things I wanted to say, that we have seen our committee leadership that has been appropriately exhalted for the hard work that they have done, and we have some terrific men and women who have been laboring in the field. The majority party has recognized some of theirs, and I would like to acknowledge Ward McCarragher, David Heymsfield, Ken House, Clyde Woodle, Jonathan Upchurch, Art Chan, Sheila Lockwood, who stayed with the committee for another 4 months before retiring, and Jason Tai. On the Majority side we have had extraordinary cooperation from Joyce Rose. These people have worked with the committee leadership, the staff to put together a really artfully crafted piece of legislation.

The problem is that we are today not able to deal with what I think is the most important issue and that is how to rightsize it. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), my good friend, talked about the number of amendments that have been offered up and balanced with what happened with the original TEA 21 or ISTEA. I do not know about the number, but the significance of the amendment is what should be debated, not the number.

We have had a meltdown with some of our friends on the Republican side of the equation because they are not being able to correlate their needs. They are concerned about adequate money dealing with a donor or donee.

Well, our amendment which was not made in order would have just simply rightsized it to the Senate number and would have provided $3 billion more for California, $2.5 billion for Texas, $1.6 billion for New York, $1.5 billion for Florida. It would have given the committee leadership an opportunity to deal with the balance that is so important.

I hope that we will, in a moment, support an effort by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) to be able to make in order an amendment to deal with at least voting on whether we are going to have the same level of funding as the Senate. I think it is important for the House to establish that marker. It would make it a lot easier for everybody. It is fully funded. It does not require a tax increase, and I sincerely hope that we will, in our wisdom, be able to consider it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the concept that is being advanced by my friend from New Jersey. One of the things that I had worked on prior to coming to Congress dealt with taking away the cars of repeat drunk drivers.

I listened to the story of Ensign Elliott and, sadly, this is a pattern that is repeated time after time after time. People who commit carnage on our highways, repeat drunk drivers, too often there is a far too long history. If we had an effective program of impoundment or vehicle confiscation, I think we would make a dramatic statement towards the people who are serial abusers.

It is something that I think makes clear that the license to drive is not a license to kill; that if we had a more aggressive program to disarm people who have shown that they are repeatedly dangerous drivers, we can find some common ground.

Too often we have had people who are, for example, in the restaurant and beverage industry that are concerned about how low the blood alcohol level is going to fall. We have had concerns from our friends with the Mothers Against Drunk Driving who want to move forward. Well, this is one people can unite behind.

I appreciate the gentleman bringing it forward. I hope that we can put something in this legislation before we are through that speaks to vehicle impoundment, that encourages States to have vehicle forfeiture, and that we can take a dramatic step towards eliminating the tiny fraction of people who are repeat drunk drivers who inflict such damage on the highways.

Mr. Speaker, this House over the next 2 days is going to be debating the single most important environmental and jobs bill of the session, the reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act. It is unfortunate that we are not going to have the opportunity to deal with a bill that is right-sized for America's needs.

The administration's own Department of Transportation has concluded that we need $375 billion to meet America's needs over the next 6 years; yet the administration has threatened to use its first veto of any bill if we have the temerity to approve anything over $256 billion, which will be a 10 percent cut in transportation funding over the next 6 years.

Nobody in this Chamber feels that we should be cutting our investment in the future. It is time for Members on both sides of the aisle to support the bipartisan committee leadership to at least approve the $275 billion bill, keep the basic structure in place, and make sure that we are giving America the transportation infrastructure it needs for the future.