Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to urge--indeed, to plead--with my colleagues to cosponsor bipartisan legislation that Representative Kinzinger and I will be introducing this afternoon, which would authorize 1,000 additional special immigrant visas to allow the United States to bring our Afghan allies to safety here in America. Earlier this week, Senators McCain and Shaheen introduced identical legislation in the other body.

The need for this bill is urgent. Indeed, Congress should have acted yesterday. That is because the State Department has confirmed now that they have completely run out of the visas we authorized in December. In a way, that is good news.

Remember how in previous years the State and other agencies never remotely came close to using the visas that were authorized, which consigned these poor souls to the seventh circle of bureaucratic hell. Processing was so slow and abysmal that only 32 of our Afghan allies received a visa in 2012. People were left in limbo--or worse--while the Taliban hunted them down, kidnapped their siblings, murdered their parents--capturing them, torturing, beheading them.

But the administration responded to the demand from Congress for significant reform in the program, and the agency has aggressively attacked the visa-eligible backlog. Despite the processing--on average, 400 visas each month since January--years of a failed system means that, today, there remains an astonishing 6,340 brave men and women waiting in limbo.

If Congress does not act before we adjourn for the August recess, it means we will be slamming the door to safety for hundreds of our Afghan allies and their families. With each day that passes, these are people whose lives and those of their families are left to the tender mercies of the Taliban--seeking revenge.

Mr. Speaker, Representative Kinzinger and I have a nonpartisan, fully paid-for bill--House leadership willing--that could pass on the floor in the blink of an eye. All we have to do--what we must do--is choose to make it a priority. Remember, we have done this before. Reforms that enabled the program to work passed as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act on this floor by, I found, an inspiring 420-3 margin. Passing this bill is not only the right thing to do for these poor souls, it is in our own national security interest.

As Secretary Kerry pointed out in urging Congress to grant more visas, ``The way a country winds down a war in a faraway place and stands by those who risk their own safety to help us in the fight sends a powerful message to the world that is not soon forgotten.''

Whether or not you supported the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, what matters now is where we stand in keeping our commitments. This bill, authorizing an additional 1,000 visas for the balance of this current fiscal year, is a Band-Aid--but a critical one. We are going to have to act again in the coming months to deal with fiscal year 2015, starting in October.

For too long, it was the State and other agencies that failed to make this the priority it needed to be. Now that they have upped the attention, the focus, the resources, and the commitment, let's not let Congress be the obstacle. Innocent lives are at stake. American honor is on the line.

I urge my colleagues to do everything they can in the coming days to bring this bill to the floor. It is our duty to save the lives of those who risked so much to help us when we needed them.

Madam Speaker, today, Oregon begins a campaign that may turn the corner, once and for all, on our illogical, ill-advised approach to marijuana.

We have reached a critical point, where, over the last 40 years, a misguided policy of prohibition has patently failed. It simply doesn't work. It criminalizes behavior that most Americans feel should be legal. It costs taxpayers billions of dollars a year in the futile enforcement of prohibition. It feeds billions more into the coffers of drug cartels, which destabilize Mexico while they terrorize Central American countries, sending tens of thousands of children fleeing to our borders.

Imagine a situation so desperate that a parent would send a child on a treacherous journey, thousands of miles away.

The current policy undermines the credibility of government drug prevention programs. How do we expect people to respect an authority that pretends marijuana is more dangerous than methamphetamine or cocaine, that cannot answer the simple question: Has anybody ever died of a marijuana overdose?

Why respect an agency that wastes time and money that should be spent on drugs that are much more deadly and addictive?

The winds of change are blowing through the Capitol. We have seen, in the recent weeks, we have had five consecutive victorious votes on the House floor to have a more rational policy.

But the real leadership is at the State level. Forcing the issue are 23 States and the District of Columbia, where, now, over a million patients have access to medical marijuana, often in programs authorized by the voters.

In 2012, voters in Colorado and Washington both legalized adult use and have now started commercial markets, in Washington State just this month.

The campaign in Oregon is going to be key. It is a carefully-drawn statute which will be considered by the voters.

Now, make no mistake, the one-size-fits-all prohibition fanatics will be out in force, and we will hear about any hiccups in the neighboring State of Washington, largely blown out of proportion.

But we are going to hear everybody talk about their legitimate concern for keeping marijuana out of the hands of children. We all agree that young brains should not be subjected to marijuana. But, frankly, this is one of the biggest failures of our current program of prohibition.

We have a huge underground, shadow market. No one thinks that a 12- year old has a harder time getting a joint than a case of beer. Nobody checks ID. No one has a license to lose.

The success in Oregon will usher in, I think, a new era where the States have the right to regulate marijuana, just like alcohol. There will be more money for things we care about, like education, drug treatment, and drug enforcement, to keep and protect our children.

The failure of the current Federal prohibition is obvious. I am hopeful that voters in Oregon can help usher in this new era of regulation for adults and protections for children.

I think it is going to be a fascinating public policy debate.

Mr. Speaker, I voted against H.R. 5016, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act.

The bill cut too deeply into many important services--including an insane $340 million cut to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). No business cripples its account receivables department and neither should we. The Congressional Budget Office has found that cutting the IRS's ability to enforce tax law ultimately costs more in lost revenue than the money saved in the initial cut. This is simply bad policy that does not save the government money.

I was pleased to see the rejection of an amendment offered by Representative Fleming, which would have rolled back the Administration's guidance to banks seeking to provide services to state-legal marijuana businesses, and the adoption of an amendment offered by Representative Heck, which will increase access to these services. These were two strong votes to stop forcing state-legal marijuana businesses to operate only in cash, a situation that is unsafe and invites illegal activity. This was a victory for commonsense reform.

This was a rare bright spot, however, in otherwise reckless legislation that slows the enactment of effective financial regulations, reduces our ability to collect much-needed revenue and meddles in the affairs of the D.C. government. It was for these reasons that I opposed this legislation and was disappointed to see it pass.

Mr. Speaker, this is sort of an Alice in Wonderland experience here. We deal on an ongoing basis with provisions in the Tax Code. We have routinely extended some, as has been referenced; but what we have attempted to do historically is work together to be able to weigh, to balance--in many cases, pay for--for a duration that is not going to have the fiscal discipline evaporate.

We need to be able to manage these provisions because they actually cost the Treasury money, and some are more valuable than others. There are tradeoffs.

My friend, the chairman, worked for years producing a deficit-neutral tax reform, which had much to commend it, and I commend him for his hard work. All of these elements were addressed in his tax reform, but they were dealt with differently. Not all were extended permanently. In some cases, they were modified, some were repealed, some were made permanent--as part of a deliberative process to evaluate the impact and to not break the bank.

He did it right. I appreciate it. I am sorry that it has not been introduced, and it was dismissed by the Speaker. I think that was a mistake.

Today, we are continuing an effort to abandon any semblance that this Congress is going to work on major accomplishments before we adjourn.

This week, we passed legislation that, if it were enacted, would kick into the next Congress our transportation bill, handing off that responsibility at least to the next Congress, probably the Congress after that.

We have found that they are giving up on deficit reduction, with budget-busting proposals roaring through here with no semblance of honoring their own budget rules under their budget resolution.

They have given up on tax reform because we are not going to be able to have meaningful tax reform if we are just willy-nilly going to rush all these provisions through, an avalanche of spending.

It takes away the tools that are necessary to make the changes we all know are necessary with the Tax Code and for what my friend, the chairman, worked on so hard.

Last, but not least, they have given up on the previous tradition of bipartisan cooperation. Republicans have forced responsible Members to oppose what they passionately support. Well, luckily, this bill will not be enacted. We will be able to work with the Senate.

This bill is not going to be enacted into law, and we will be able to pick up where it left off and, frankly, where Mr. Camp left off, as we work with our friends in the other body.

My friend and fellow Oregonian, Senator Wyden, the Chair, has already advanced some proposals we will be able to work with. It is a little more evenhanded, and that is how ultimately we are going to go, but I am sorry for what this represents in terms of this Congress giving up.

I think we can do better. I hope people will vote against this, and we will commit to move forward on the things that we are all committed to in a way that is fiscally responsible, is bipartisan and thoughtful, working with the interest groups that deserve us to work together to get the outcomes we all want for them.

Mr. Speaker, the amount of information that passes through a Congressional office on a daily basis is astounding. While the morning might see me and my staff meeting with one group of constituents on the perils of climate change, and another on the need for universal advanced care directives, the evening may bring a bill on mining rights or international trade to the floor of the House of Representatives. All of these discussions, decisions, and debates require me and my staff to have access to vast amounts of unbiased information that we can trust. We have no greater resource than the Congressional Research Service.

The experts at CRS work with incredible speed and accuracy to get my office the information we need. Whenever we are drafting legislation or looking for more background as we delve into complicated policy, CRS is always a first call. Over the years, we have come back to certain experts again and again and are always increasingly impressed at the depth of their knowledge of their subject matters.

Congratulations to CRS on its 100th anniversary. I hope that this vital institution remains vibrant as our government strives toward a better and more nuanced understanding of the issues and challenges we face as a country.

Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, I joined several of my colleagues and hundreds of people in the Congressional Auditorium to watch a gripping new film, ``The Interpreters,'' by VICE News, about the American failure to protect Afghans who helped our soldiers as guides, interpreters, and drivers. Their lives are now at risk as a result of their brave service and our failure to act.

For almost a decade, I have been battling to have the United States honor these obligations by effectively implementing the Special Immigrant Visas program authorized by Congress. For a while, we were battling the bureaucracy itself, which issued an embarrassing total of 32 visas for all of 2012 to help save these poor souls trapped in a bureaucratic hell.

Since the beginning of the year, this bureaucratic logjam has broken and we have been able to raise it to an average of 400 a month. With that progress has come troubling news.

Congress set the cap on these visas artificially low--only 3,000 for the entire fiscal year. These visas are effectively gone now. They are used up. It is not theoretical. We have 6,000 Afghan applicants in the pipeline right now and more who are looking for relief and safety.

Recently, Secretary Kerry, in a powerful opinion piece in the LA Times, noted this challenge and called on Congress to act and raise the cap. With each day that passes, as is so vividly illustrated by VICE Media's gripping documentary, these are people whose lives and those of their families are left to the tender mercies of the Taliban seeking revenge and setting as an example.

One case just caught my eye. The plight of Mohammad is typical. His father was murdered and his toddler brother was abducted, all because of his special service to the United States. Without a Special Immigrant Visa, he was next on the list to be kidnapped, tortured, and perhaps beheaded.

As Secretary Kerry pointed out, ``the way a country winds down a war in a faraway place and stands by those who risk their own safety to help us in the fight sends a powerful message to the world that is not soon forgotten.'' Secretary Kerry said:

And as the withdrawal proceeds, the United States is in

danger of sending the wrong message to the interpreters and

others who put their lives on the line to help our troops and

diplomats do their jobs.

That is why this is so urgent.

Remember how we brought the Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa back to life last October in the middle of impossible circumstances during the government shutdown? There was bipartisan support, thanks to Leader Cantor, Leader Hoyer, Chairman Goodlatte, Tulsi Gabbard, Adam Kinzinger, and others. A number of bipartisan leaders sprung to action. We need that same bipartisan spirit of support and urgency for the Afghan visa program. As soon as possible, Congress must authorize at least 1,000 additional visas for this fiscal year to get us through these next critical months.

It is the moral obligation of every Member of Congress not to just cosponsor H.R. 4594, the bipartisan Afghan Allies Protection Act, which I have introduced with my friend and colleague Adam Kinzinger and Senators McCain and Shaheen in the Senate, but we should demand action before we adjourn.

As Congressman Kinzinger pointed out, it doesn't matter where you stood on the Iraq war--I thought it was a tragic mistake, and I still do--but what matters now is where we stand in keeping our commitments. Innocent lives are at stake. American honor is on the line. Our future actions could be compromised if people don't trust us.

It is our duty to save the lives of those who risked so much to help us when we needed them. They need us to cosponsor H.R. 4594 to protect innocent lives and American honor.

Madam Speaker, recent news has been filled with stories about the impact of India's sanitation crisis, like the NPR story about the horrific murder and rape of two young girls that could have been prevented if they didn't need to sneak out into the night to relieve themselves, leaving them vulnerable to attack.

Today, The New York Times has a heartbreaking piece directly linking the root cause of India's malnutrition crisis to the lack of adequate sanitation.

Many of the 162 million children under the age of five who are malnourished are suffering less from a lack of enough food and more from poor sanitation, and sadly, even those children who are lucky enough to survive are left with mental and physical deficits that will haunt them their entire lives.

This crisis that leaves women vulnerable, needlessly ends lives early, and undermines economic growth has solutions. I would strongly urge my colleagues to join me and Judge Poe in sponsoring the Water for the World Act to make American efforts more effective, preventing the needless loss of a child's life every minute and the threat to young women and girls.

Thank you, Mr. Polis.

I listened carefully to what you said, and you are right--this closed rule is a disservice. My respected friend from Florida, I think, is just wrong.

Madam Speaker, this is not a solution, and it is not a deliberate, thoughtful process. We have not had a single hearing on transportation finance in the Ways and Means Committee all year. We didn't have one the year before that. We haven't had a hearing in the 43 months that Republicans have been in charge. This is a perfectly predictable problem that was created by the halfhearted bill that they passed last Congress. We knew this was coming for months. Now we are here.

With all due respect, I, too, am disappointed that we have a rule that does not make in order broad discussion and amendment. We have been unable in this Congress to deal meaningfully with the looming transportation crisis. The gentleman is on the Transportation Committee. He doesn't have a bill. We are almost through this Congress, and we don't have a bill. America is falling apart. America is falling behind. We have failed to give America's communities the resources and a robust 6-year reauthorization plan.

We have done it before under the chairmanship of Bud Shuster and Ranking Member Jim Oberstar, and I was happy to have played a small role. That bill made a difference.

If we fail to come to grips with the funding level and, instead, in approving this rule and the underlying bill, this Congress is giving itself a ticket out of town to adjourn and pass it on to not just the next Congress but to the Congress after that. Make no mistake. In May 2015, you are not going to be in any different a place. It is going to be May 2017.

Congress has legitimate policy differences. I appreciate my friend from New Jersey. Some people think that the Federal Government should get out of the partnership that we have had and reduce or eliminate the Federal gas tax. They are willing to give up on the successful partnership and let each State decide what to do, when it wants to do it, or what it is able or not able to do. They would abandon all sense of a national vision and the ability to shape transportation policies. That is rejected by the mayors, rejected by county commissioners, rejected by State transportation officials. They want that partnership.

Frankly, there are some people who feel the gas tax ought to be adjusted to deal with inflation and increased fuel economy as well as the demands of a growing Nation with an aging infrastructure. Some people are comfortable with the Republican budget, which will have no new projects for 15 months and will doom us to a 30 percent reduction over the next 10 years. Those are legitimate policy differences, but we are not dealing with them here on the floor. We are shrugging our shoulders, passing them on to the next Congress and, frankly, to the Congress after that.

I agree with the people who build and maintain and use our transportation infrastructure. We should address this infrastructure question head on. American infrastructure used to be the best in the world and a point of pride, bringing Americans together. It is now a source of embarrassment and deep concern as we fall further and further behind global leaders.

We ought to reject this rule. We ought to allow full debate and, by all means, resolve the funding question now so we can go forward. America deserves no less.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am pleased that Congress is finally acting today, not with a looming crisis, but one that is already upon us. This is entirely predictable.

I have been arguing for months that Congress needs to act because the stopgap measure we did last Congress was designed to create precisely this Congress at precisely this time.

Sixty-two groups may have signed on a letter of support, but they prefer us to act meaningfully for long-term funding. They accept this because it is the only alternative to shutting down activities this summer.

My Republican friends are unwilling--not unable--but unwilling to resolve the funding contradictions. Revenues have failed to keep pace with the demands of an aging growing Nation, making no change for 21 years, as our infrastructure ages and falls apart, our Nation continues to grow and transportation patterns change. It is guaranteed that we should change as well.

This Congress has refused to address its responsibilities. The House Ways and Means Committee has not had a single hearing on transportation finance. One of our most important responsibilities, uniquely ours, one that is unlike so many other items we deal with, it is possible to resolve. We haven't had a hearing in the 43 months that the Republicans have been in charge of Congress.

Now, I understand there are conflicts within the Republican Caucus. There are some that appear satisfied with locking us into a slow, steady decline called for in the Republican budget--no new projects until October of 2015 and a 30 percent reduction over the next decade, at exactly the time the Federal partnership should be enhanced, not reduced.

There are others in the Republicans whose answer is to just abandon ship, to give up on the Federal partnership, slash the Federal gas tax, and abandon any hope of a national transportation policy and partnership to help States with projects that are multistate in nature or that need to be done whether economic times are bad.

That would be tragic and wrong to abandon the partnership that has meant so much, but it is part of what is driving some of our Republican Tea Party friends. Just because there may not be a majority in the Republican ranks for either approach does not mean that we should continue to dither.

Because Republicans friends are unwilling or unable to resolve this, we have frozen the Transportation Committee in place. They don't have a bill. They are not going to have a bill unless we resolve what the budget number is: increase, continue the downward slide, or abandon it altogether.

We will be no better off next May to resolve this question. In fact, we will be worse off because we will be in the middle of a Presidential campaign, with a new Congress, maybe new committee lineups.

So as one of the stakeholders told me as we filed out of the hearing room last week, May 2015 is really May 2017 and, I might add, at the earliest.

We should reject this approach to hand off our responsibilities. We should resolve the resource question, and we should commit that this Congress is not going to recess for August vacation, not going to recess to campaign in October, until we have worked to give the American people a transportation bill they need--deserve--to jump-start the economy, create hundreds of thousands of family-wage jobs, and strengthen communities and families across the Nation.

American infrastructure used to be the best in the world and a point of pride bringing Americans together. It is now a source of embarrassment and deep concern as we fall further and further behind global leaders.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), one of the champions on our committee for infrastructure in America.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman

from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), who has been a valued member of our committee, and we are going to miss her.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), a valued member of our Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), an eloquent spokesperson for rebuilding and renewing America.

I yield myself the remainder of the time.

I appreciate my friend from Michigan putting into the Record what can only be regarded as reluctant letters of support. I wish that some of my colleagues would have had time to look at it. It is not a ringing endorsement of what is before us. It is a reluctant acknowledgement that that is all we have time for, that is all the Republicans will allow.

I have worked with those groups, with the road builders, with the Chamber, with the AFL-CIO, with the contractors, with elements large and small, local governments, transit. They are unanimous in their effort, in their regard that we should deal with this in the big picture. A number of them had letters before the Ways and Means Committee that it should be done this year, not kicked forward. That is why I asked our Republican chairman to allow us to hear from these people.

If we would have heard from Peter Ruane from the Road Builders in person; Tom Donohue from the Chamber; Rich Trumka from the AFL-CIO; Terence O'Sullivan, the eloquent leader of the Laborers'; from the AAA and the truckers, Bill Graves, they wouldn't endorse this approach. They would be

talking about our getting down to business. But the Republicans would not allow us a hearing, not for 43 months. So they are reduced to offering tepid letters of support so the whole system doesn't fall apart.

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully suggest that those are not a reason to move forward with this legislation and be happy. It is a sad commentary that this is the best that the Republicans think they can give us.

Those road groups who depend on moving freight, maintaining roads, who care about the health and well-being of our communities deserve better. Our families deserve better. The economy deserves better.

I hope that we will, in a moment, have a motion to recommit that will shorten the amount of time that we let this Congress off the hook and make sure that we don't adjourn this Congress without doing our job.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this may be the last chance Congress has to honor our commitments to provide answers about transportation funding and develop a framework that will guide the Federal partnership that has meant so much. The motion won't kill the bill, and it won't delay the bill. It simply reduces the funding to the amount necessary for Congress to do its job before we adjourn for the year. It is so that we cannot duck our responsibilities and hand this off not to the next Congress but to the Congress after that.

Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, in May of next year there will be no transportation bill, there will be no funding, and Congress will be even more nervous and confused with a transportation problem that will be more complex. It will be more expensive, and the politics, I am sad to say, will be harder, not easier.

My good friend, the chair of the Ways and Means Committee, does have a proposal. He has never had a hearing on it. And it was dismissed when it was announced by his own Speaker, if I quote: ``Blah, blah, blah.''

This is a sad moment for me. But it is not too late for us to do something about it. We need to move forward and have a tighter timetable. Let's finally have a hearing in Ways and Means. Let's have a proposal going forward. I am perfectly willing to work in August to do this. I would be happy for us to add days in September. We shouldn't recess in October to campaign and leave a big question mark. It is true that it takes time to put these things together, but we won't be putting it together next spring, mark my words.

The Republicans need to enable us to find out where they stand. Will they finally have a hearing on my friend Mr. Camp's proposal? Will they slash the highway trust fund and abandon the responsibilities? Or will they just use the Ryan budget and reduce transportation 30 percent over the next 10 years and no new projects for 15 months?

Those are all legitimate issues. They deserve to have a day in court, and if we get down to work, we could resolve it. I am confident we can do it, and it will be just as easy, if not easier, to do now than waiting until next year when the clock will be ticking, when half the United States Senate will be running for President, and we will have a new lineup, other than the Speaker, who may be happy to have avoided it. It is not going to be any easier.

I respectfully suggest that we honor those 62 groups that want us to move. Look, they would much rather have us do it this year.

We had infrastructure that was once the envy of the world. Now it is a source of embarrassment. We are 27th in the world and sinking. Our problems are getting more expensive, and they are getting harder. I know how hard the job that the chair of the T&I Committee has. I respect him, I respect the committee, but they need to know exactly how much money they have got so they can fashion a bill, and if they did that, they would be able to crank one out, I am confident, in a month or two. But right now, after an entire Congress, they don't have a bill. We don't have a bill.

Those 62 groups and organizations don't have a path. What they have is a great big question mark next May when we start this all over again. This shouldn't be a partisan argument. I disagreed when President Bush shut it down. I disagreed that President Obama didn't move forward, but it is not Republicans versus Democrats. It is not House versus Senate. It is time for us to all come together and work as the stakeholders would have us do.

In fact, we don't even have to have any courage. We can just follow what those experts who represent truckers, AAA, local government, and contractors have offered as guidance. Read the special commissions that have reported to President Bush. This is not rocket science. It is will, it is action, it is deciding exactly how much we are going to spend and when.

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully request that the House approve this motion to recommit, give us enough time and money to avoid the summer shutdown but not enough to let this Congress off the hook and hand it off to the 115th or the 120th Congress, but we do our job so America can do its.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I just shared with the Speaker that the battle to save the lives of Afghans who helped Americans as guides and interpreters has been a roller coaster, documented again Wednesday night in a gripping film, ``The Interpreters,'' by VICE News, about the American failure to protect those who helped us.

The program was brought back to life during the difficult government shutdown period by a bipartisan effort. Now that same bipartisan spirit is needed again, because only a few hundred visas remain with 6,000 people in the pipeline, with thousands more who must not be left to the tender mercies of the Taliban seeking revenge to torture and kill them.

It is the moral obligation of every Member of Congress to protect the men and women who helped Americans, who protected us in some of the most difficult of circumstances.

Please don't just cosponsor H.R. 4594; demand action before we adjourn. Lives are at stake.

Mr. Speaker, we have an unusual prospect tomorrow where a proposal to raise money for the highway trust fund is opposed by the very interests strongly identified with the need for more transportation funding.

How did we get to this point? Why do we need the money? And why would the very interests that seem to benefit be opposed?

This is the latest chapter in the strange saga of congressional irresponsibility on transportation funding that started when the last Congress refused to meaningfully address the funding crisis. You see, the funding has fallen in the highway trust fund that is based on gallons of fuel consumed, but the need continues.

The United States is now spending far less on infrastructure than our competing countries, and the vital Federal partnership, which can be a third or more of the funding in our States, is falling further and further behind.

But Congress put its head in the sand. There has not even been a hearing on the needs of transportation finance by the Ways and Means Committee, which is the House committee with primary jurisdiction. I am afraid my friend Dave Camp, the chair of that committee, has it exactly wrong. He is proposing a short-term fix tomorrow, saying it is time for the committees of the entire House and Senate to have the influence they deserve by kicking it into the next Congress. Well, wait a minute, by refusing to have a hearing for 3\1/2\ years on transportation financing, this has produced the backroom maneuvering with no public discussion that he says he is opposed to.

Now the results of the last Congress' failure to deal meaningfully are coming sharply into focus. The already inadequate highway trust fund will not even last through the end of the 27-month extension, which expires September 30. By draining every last dime out of the highway trust fund, they have lost the capacity to manage it, and the Federal Government is preparing to cut back. That means State and local projects will be on hold later this summer.

This pending crisis has finally sparked action, but because we have never bothered to listen to the businesses and labor unions--Pete Ruane of Road Builders, Terry O'Sullivan of the Laborers', Tom Donohue of the U.S. Chamber, Rich Trumka of the AFL-CIO, Bill Graves of the American Trucking Assoc.--these are people who could have told Congress why it actually could be even worse than allowing the trust fund to temporarily go dry. That would be to punt this into the next Congress.

We have a long-term funding crisis. To kick this can to the next Congress makes it a virtual certainty we will continue to wrestle far beyond the next 2 years. Remember, in the next Congress, the Senate will be more evenly divided no matter who is in charge; we will be in the middle of a heated Presidential campaign, which seems like it has already started and half the Members of the other body are running for President. There is no realistic opportunity for the meaningful help America needs. It will be put on hold until another Presidential election is past and, hopefully, a stronger Congress elected. But that is 3 years or more. America deserves better.

That is why, almost without exception, the people who care the most and know the most, simply want a solution that gets us past the summer shutdown, enough money to tide us towards the end of the next year so this Congress can act. Then this Congress can take action that is sustainable with dedicated funding and that is robust enough to have a 6-year transportation bill that America needs.

There was a time when transportation and infrastructure brought America together to produce the finest roads, bridges, transit, and railroads in the world. We can do this again. It is time to start down this path.

I have been working with these stakeholders for years. We are open to solutions to the transportation problems. Let's listen to the needs that others have. Let's reject a proposal to punt to the next Congress. Let's get down to business and not adjourn this

year until this Congress has met its responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, for nearly two decades, one of my primary missions in Congress has been a simple one--to make our federal government a better partner to our local communities. Specifically, I believe we need to focus on making our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure by dealing with low-tech, high-impact, inexpensive solutions to some of society's most expensive problems. In many instances that means making the communities that our landscape architects know how to create, a reality. As an honorary member of the American Society of Landscape Architects, and humble recipient of the Olmsted Medal, it's an honor to highlight the importance of National Landscape Architecture Month and the many men and women who carry out this critical and visionary work.

National Landscape Architecture Month (NLAM) provides all of us--the professionals, the outside advocates like myself, and future designers--with an opportunity to more fully appreciate landscape architecture's benefits and contributions. In recognition of NLAM, I would like to highlight the landscape architecture profession and how landscape architects utilize design to make our lives not only better and more enjoyable by creating engaging public spaces, but also more secure by creating efficient, cost-effective infrastructure solutions. Landscape architecture connects the analysis, planning, design, management, and stewardship of the natural and built environments through science and design. The presence of the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) and landscape architect professionals in our communities has always been positive, and as the desire for livable spaces grows and the natural environment continues to get squeezed by increased urbanization, this profession will get significantly more attention.

During the month of April, landscape architects in my hometown of Portland, Oregon and across the country held public events showcasing the work of the profession that directly engage the public through local projects, speaking engagements, and in-school presentations. This year's theme, Career Discovery, introduced young people to landscape architecture as a possible career path and focused on introducing underrepresented minorities to the profession, illustrating the fundamentals of landscape architecture and design, and demonstrating how the profession can unlock human creativity and imagination to develop sustainable, livable spaces in communities across the Nation.

In addition to beautifying and making our communities more livable, in which people can walk, bike, or take public transportation, landscape architecture is a critical tool for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and responding to the effects of climate change and extreme weather events. The field is also making new strides to improve America's aging transportation infrastructure. Landscape architects are now incorporating multiuse transportation corridors that accommodate all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, people with disabilities, and people who rely on public transportation.

Landscape architecture also touches our everyday lives in the design of residential communities, commercial developments, and streetscapes. Landscape architects manage storm water and other water quality issues through green infrastructure practices--reducing runoff, improving water quality, and recharging groundwater supplies. The use of trees and vegetation in urban design are critical to a sustainable environment, and are major combatants to ground and water pollution.

I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing National Landscape Architecture Month and the contributions landscape architects are making to transform our aging infrastructure into well-planned communities across the Nation. Every day, these well-qualified, licensed professionals continue to lead the way in improving the lives and safety of the American people for generations, both present and future.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 12: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 13: Page 19, line 24, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by $9,808,000)''.

Page 21, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $14,712,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this is an old friend to the committee and the floor and my friend, Congressman Hastings, and we couldn't have him retire from Congress without doing this one more time.

By way of background for those who haven't walked through this before, in 1995, Congress--desiring to encourage bidding on leases in certain deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico--provided relief from the normal applicable royalties payable to the United States.

What we found, in the course of this, is it worked. People bid on the leases, they went in; but we found out that there was no provision for eliminating the royalty exemption if the market price of oil rose back up to reasonable levels.

According to some accounts, this omission might have been an administrative error. What we have found about the mismanagement of the Minerals Management Services--people literally in bed with the people that they were supposed to regulate--it may not have been an administrative oversight, but whatever, it was wrong. It shouldn't have been there.

As a result, now with oil up to $100 a barrel and higher, they are pumping this oil without paying anything to the Federal Government, far beyond what was ever contemplated.

Now my amendment is simple. It gives these companies a choice. They can either renegotiate and execute leases for this oil, which was obviously the intent--there was never any intent to make this permanent on an ongoing basis--and pay reasonable royalties to the United States, especially since a number of these companies are foreign companies, state-owned enterprises, or they simply wouldn't be able to bid for new leases. Their choice. No coercion. But the taxpayers stand to benefit $15.5 billion over the next 10 years, and, in fact, over the life of these leases, $31 billion or more. I respectfully suggest, it is time to approve this amendment.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, we are not seeking to break contracts. What we are doing is providing an opportunity for people to renegotiate these contracts, to stop making a profit by exploiting a loophole or a mistake that both of us agree was unintended and unfortunate.

This would be their choice. Contracts are renegotiated on an ongoing basis routinely with government and in the private sector. And I would respectfully suggest that this is a contract that is long overdue to be renegotiated.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time remains?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say, there is an excellent report from the Congressional Research Service on this subject that makes clear that it is not illegal or in violation of contract law. The argument is very sustainable.

And it is not the oil company that gives me heartburn, to my dear friend. I would think any of us would have heartburn if the Federal Treasury, the taxpayers, were cheated out of $25 billion to $50 billion due to an error or an omission. That ought to give heartburn to anybody. This amendment will fix it.

I yield back the balance of my time.