Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, with the unfortunate Arizona State immigration law under review by the Supreme Court, it's an appropriate time to take a step back and look at the big picture. Mexico is exhibiting some of the demographic changes taking place around the world that are seen in the most extreme forms in places like Japan and Italy, where birth rates are falling, their populations are aging, and dramatic stress is placed upon their economies.

It's not yet to that point in Mexico, but the game has definitely changed. In contrast, the United States has had a growing and vibrant population, in no small measure because we've been energized from people around the world. It's time to consider our immigration policies and practices for the future.

Even though there's been no more contentious issue in American politics than that of immigration, the situation surrounding Mexican immigration has changed profoundly. As I mentioned, the birth rate is falling, and for the first time as many people are leaving the United States for Mexico as are arriving from Mexico in the United States.

Illegal entry is clearly declining. The number of arrests at the border demonstrates that. People are being deported in greater numbers than ever before. It's not that there isn't still a problem. There are still some bad actors coming across the border, no mistake about it.

There are important opportunities to concentrate on what's important, such as people who are dealing with drugs, pose security threats, and who are criminals. Wasting resources on a scattershot effort on people who are here just to work or to be with their families is not particularly a wise use of resources, and it doesn't make us any safer.

It's past time to deal with the millions of people who are already here and part of the fabric of our communities. Often, they are with families that include children who are citizens and other family members who are citizens as part of an extended family. It's not just the members of those extended families that rely on one another; America relies on these millions of people, as the Alabama legislature found out with draconian efforts to try and deal with illegal immigrants--and legal immigrants, by the way--that ended up almost ruining a number of their farmers, and their legislature had to backtrack.

Immigrants have always been a source of America's strength. Our current policies inflict damage to the realities of those family ties, especially to children who are already citizens.

We also do other dumb things. We deny VISAs to smart people who are educated at great expense at some of the finest institutions in America with important skills that will be valuable to business. We make it hard for them to work here. Unfortunately, if their skills are going to be utilized, too often they end up being hired by foreign overseas competitors, or American companies have to create jobs for them overseas.

There are a half-dozen pieces of legislation in a piecemeal fashion that will make it better. One of the most important is the DREAM Act, which would allow children who were brought here at an early age to be able to earn the right to citizenship if they have done well with their education or serve in the military.

I'm pleased to see all of these different pieces of legislation that would bring a measure of rationality and fairness gaining support. The most important thing we can do is return to that spirit of bipartisan cooperation that was exhibited by the late Ted Kennedy and, by the way, how John McCain used to be, before he ran for reelection in today's Arizona, because they were sponsoring comprehensive immigration reform. They didn't rely on half a dozen pieces of legislation, but really looked at the problem holistically for the people involved, for the community, and for the country. They would have a thoughtful path to citizenship that people could earn, not being granted amnesty but by paying taxes, learning the language, demonstrating a clear commitment to what it takes to

be a constructive part of the community.

Comprehensive immigration reform is what ultimately will help us unwind this problem, save money and heartache, and get about the business of building a stronger American future for all our families.

Tonight, in Portland, Oregon, there's a special ceremony as Duncan Campbell is honored at the 84th Annual Portland First Citizen Award Banquet. I'm sorry that duties require me to be here in Washington, DC, instead of with hundreds of Duncan's friends and admirers back home in Portland.

This is a very special award for a unique human being. Duncan has a very compelling personal story, working his way through a childhood marred by neglect and alcoholism. He put himself through college at Portland State University and eventually did the same at law school, earning his

degree at the University of Oregon. He founded the Campbell Group, a very successful firm, pioneering work establishing timber investment funds. He soon became recognized as an innovator and an industry leader, but his real story is his lifelong commitment to children.

Shaped by his own difficult early experiences, Duncan has focused on ways that he can use his success financially and intellectually to advance the cause of disadvantaged children. He's done this in numerous ways, but I think his greatest achievement is the establishment of an organization known as Friends of the Children. He put part of the proceeds of the sale of his company to establish the program in 1993. Starting small, it was built around the principle that troubled young people need a constant adult presence supporting, guiding, and not just mentoring but really becoming a part of their lives. Over the years, it has proven to be spectacularly successful.

Currently, there are 90 friends who are paid, full-time mentors, each serving as a caring adult--a constant presence for a handful of children. These friends are not just in Portland, Oregon, but in rural Oregon, in Sisters and Klamath Falls, and now in projects in Boston, New York, and Seattle.

Duncan's vision is to focus on the children with the very highest risk factors. These children statistically would undoubtedly fail to complete school. Most would have problems with drugs or alcohol, early unplanned out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and almost all would fall into the criminal justice system.

The results of his handiwork are overwhelming and compelling:

Eighty-five percent of these children, who most experts agree would otherwise fall through the cracks or worse, graduate from high school;

Ninety percent avoid involvement with the criminal justice system, even though 60 percent of these at-risk children are part of a program that have a parent who's been incarcerated;

Despite the fact that 60 percent of these children were born to a teen parent, 95 percent avoid early parenting themselves;

According to a report by the Harvard Business School Association of Oregon, every dollar invested in the organization results in more than $7 in reduced social costs for the community and untold richness for the children involved.

This is an amazing program with compelling results. It was willed into existence by my friend, Duncan Campbell. Portland honors him this evening, but all Americans should honor not just the example but the specifics.

Friends of the Children is a program that works and should be replicated. I will do all I can to help the Federal Government find a way for it to be a partner in this unparalleled success story. This is the best way to honor Duncan, his vision, and his commitment.

I listened to my good friend and colleague from the other side of the river from my hometown of Portland, Oregon, talking about trying to assist small business and encourage economic development.

But the facts are that the vast majority of this aid, as we've talked about, is going to be unfocused. It's going to go to people whether they need it or not, including some of the wealthiest individuals and partnerships--accountants, lobbyists--and to companies regardless of whether or not they add employment or reduce it.

At this very time, we have people on Capitol Hill who are begging us to get real about infrastructure investment. We finally are getting a bill to conference, but we're hung up on funding it. The Republican budget would cut transportation funding 46 percent, $6.5 billion less than is necessary to keep current obligations. This week, small business people, including a number who visited my office, came in, imploring us to stop the games and to get on with the reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act.

If we really are going to borrow $46 billion from China or from whomever and add to the deficit, if we have that capacity, for heavens sakes, we should invest it in rebuilding and renewing America.

With this $46 billion, added to the bipartisan Senate bill that passed with 74 votes--half the Republicans--we could have a robust reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act and create hundreds of thousands of family-wage jobs. Not by picking winners and losers, but by going back to the day when we used to work together on a bipartisan basis to fund infrastructure and to help strengthen every community around the country.

Reject this gimmick. If we have an extra $46 billion we're going to borrow, invest it in rebuilding and renewing America--really helping small business and strengthening the environment in every community across America.

Mr. Speaker, I heard my good friend from Chicago talking about people begging for investment. Well, business is looking for our assistance, but nobody has come seeking an inefficient effort like this that will dig ourselves deeper into debt and not have impact. We have offered alternatives that would not have added to the deficit and would have helped business right away.

I'm honored to be joined on the floor by a young friend, Johnny Hammer, who in looking at this assessment, said, This is going to be adding to the deficit. That's right, and we didn't need to do that. Instead, we should be focusing on things that are deficit neutral that will give American business things that will add productivity right now.

I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this proposal and think about the young Johnny Hammers of this world investing in our future in a way that is responsible and sustainable.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct a vote I made yesterday, regarding the Holt Amendment to H.R. 4809, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012. I mistakenly voted against the amendment, when I intended to support it. I strongly support Rep. Holt's intention, which was to make a technical correction to the legislation to allow a local park manager to close a park to hunting and recreational shooting when necessary. My record in supporting and protecting our national parks is a testimony to my strong commitment to these important places, and I believe that Rep. Holt's amendment was an important technical correction.

I wish to clearly state for the record that I supported the Holt Amendment to H.R. 4809 and did not intend to vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, today is the deadline for filing tax returns. Even though we were given 2 extra days this year, we are running out of time for the Tax Code.

The tax system doesn't generate enough money for what America needs and spends today. It's getting more expensive every year to continue the huge array of tax breaks even as the code itself becomes more unfair, complex, and inefficient. It costs over $160 billion a year for Americans just to comply with the Tax Code.

The path forward should be simple. First, we should stop making the code more complex, which, sadly, the Republican plan working its way forward will do with $50 billion of additional unfocused tax breaks. At least if we're going to borrow another $50 billion from the Chinese, we should use it to fund job-creating infrastructure. For instance, that $50 billion would enable us to fund a multiyear transportation reauthorization.

We should also repeal the pernicious alternative minimum tax. It was once designed as a tax on very rich people who didn't pay taxes. Today, no billionaire hedge fund manager pays the alternative minimum tax. Instead, it falls on upper middle-income families, especially those who pay a lot of taxes.

Every year we find some creative way to avoid the consequence of it not being indexed for inflation. Every year we find some way to have a fix, to have a patch to avoid the alternative minimum tax's full impact. Unless somehow there is a complete breakdown in the political process, which, sadly, is not impossible, as we saw this last year with the FAA reauthorization. If that were to happen, then at least the full fury of 20 to 30 million of upper middle-income and middle-income households who would be forced to pay it--they would force it to be repealed.

We should combine the alternative minimum tax repeal with the imposition of the so-called ``Buffett Rule,'' where millionaires at least pay as much as the people who answer their phones and drive them to work. This will get back to the original intent of the alternative minimum tax but in a way that simplifies the Tax Code rather than further complicating it.

We should stop the dangerous practice of suspending some of the payroll tax in the name of economic stimulus. We are uncomfortably close to destabilizing the long-term funding mechanism for Social Security. Instead of the payroll tax cut, let's target a tax credit for lower and middle-income families that will be fair, affordable, and help nurture our fragile economic recovery without threatening the long-term Social Security stability.

We should target for elimination tax breaks that are out of date, like the subsidy of oil that doesn't reflect current production techniques or the reality of global petroleum markets. We should instead protect subsidies that are key for our future, especially expiring renewable energy tax credits. We should renew the section 1603 Treasury grant program, which reflects current market realities and would actually be less expensive than traditional tax credits.

On this tax day, we should look for some progress towards building momentum for real tax reform. The Romney-Republican House budget refuses to identify any of the massive tax increases that will be necessary to meet

their plan of even more tax cuts for the rich, and not increase the deficit.

With $4 trillion in expiring tax provisions later this year, we should use some of that economic capacity to make the tax system more fair and simple while we reduce the debt.

The time to begin that process is now--not making the Tax Code more complex, not favoring those who need help the least, not risking long- term Social Security funding, and not borrowing for unfocused new tax relief. Instead, let's deal with investments like renewable energy and infrastructure. Let's use some of this budget capacity to reduce the overall corporate tax rate while broadening the base and closing loopholes.

Simpler, fairer, better for business. Let's eliminate the tyranny of the alternative minimum tax, protect our energy future, and support renewables. There is a path forward, and we should start on it now. What better way to honor American taxpayers on filing day than getting serious with an agenda that can actually be achieved, and should be.

I appreciate the opportunity to join in this debate. First of all, I would like to strongly agree with the previous speakers on our side of the aisle that this is trying to shield the public from the full consequences of the Republican budget.

We just left the Budget Committee, where we had an opportunity for people to start looking at what is going to happen were their budget to move forward. And make no mistake, if our friends on the other side of the aisle thought that this ``deem and pass'' was just a little modest procedural thing to do and it was a good idea, we would be having the budget discussion here with trumpets blaring. The reason we're not is what you saw in a moment of candor by the Presidential nominee-- evidently--Romney talking about what's going to happen. About Departments like Housing and Education that are going to be shrunk or eliminated, talking about the massive tax increases that are going to be necessary on middle America if they're going to give these additional tax reductions for people who need it least.

There's a reason why this is being shuffled through without a full, honest debate about the consequences. I'm hopeful that this falls short. But make no mistake, this is a sad effort to back away from assertions from the Republicans that they were going to try and open up the process, be inclusive, engage people in a broad discussion. Instead we get legislation like this.

I listened to my good friend from Michigan just sort of passing over, for example, the little item about being able to bring in trophies animals that have been hunted in Canada. Back up and look at what's happening here. This encourages people to hunt for trophies the polar bears, which are threatened and endangered. They know that they're not supposed to import it back into the United States, but now these people go out and kill these animals for trophy, for sport. Now they're going to be able to bring them here to the United States even though for years it's been inappropriate to do so. What sort of incentive is this to respect our efforts to protect threatened and endangered species like the polar bear?

Opening up public lands? We're all in favor of being able to use public lands. I come from the West. I'm one of those States where the Federal stewardship is over half the land. I represent Federal areas in my district, and I represent a lot of people who hunt and fish. I also represent a lot of people who like to hike, people who like the wilderness experience, people who respect efforts to try and manage our forests.

This legislation, if it were enacted--and mercifully it won't be--would enable some bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. to trump the decisions of local land managers to try and protect, for example, in condition of high fire hazard. We saw forest fires in Colorado started by recreational target shooting.

Now, of course our friends on the other side of the aisle aren't concerned about increased global warming, increased drought, extreme weather conditions; but for heavens sakes, taking away the ability of the local managers to be good stewards of the land, to take away the authority of the EPA to ever deal with appropriate regulations on things like lead is just silly. It's not appropriate, it's not good policy, and it's part of an effort to obscure the real efforts that are under way, and that has to do with being able to weasel this Republican budget legislation through with as little public scrutiny as possible.

I strongly urge rejection of the rule.

Mr. Speaker, on February 16, 2012, I spoke on the House floor about the intrinsic unfairness of certain bankruptcy laws. In my statement, I inappropriately characterized the actions of the Mortgage Bankers Association. The following is my amended statement:

This week, we watched the settlement unfold between the Department of Justice, the State attorneys general, and the major banks. Twenty-six billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, but given that almost one in four homeowners owe more on their mortgages than the values of their homes--overall losing some $700 billion in value. This is a step in the right direction that will help some people but is not really a major correction. There are still far too few real pressures to get the market right.

There is a simple answer that won't cost the taxpayers a dime and which will stabilize the housing depression within a year. It would help reestablish home values and encourage banks to work with their customers whose mortgages are ``under water''.

The recent decision of American Airlines to pursue bankruptcy is illustrative. This corporate giant could actually pay its bills. It had some $4 billion in cash and was still taking in revenue, but it made a strategic judgment to use the bankruptcy laws to reposition itself to win market rate loan terms, to modify its union contracts and the pension obligations to its employees because, under the law, a bankruptcy judge can adjust these business relationships to reflect current market conditions--for a business, that is. Curiously, homeowners are treated differently.

A business speculator could buy 10 units in a condominium in south Florida when the housing bubble bursts and could get bankruptcy relief on all 10 units--but not Sally Six-Pack, who bought an identical unit to live in.

What is it about homeowners that make them less worthy of relief of the fresh start of bankruptcy than the speculator or American Airlines? The answer is right here on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Congress has decided to look out for business, not the homeowner. The daisy chain of profit we saw collapsing under the weight of colossal greed and bad judgment was protected at the expense of the homeowner, who was trapped, with limited options to renegotiate, with no leverage, who simply faced foreclosure, a short sale, or what is described as jingle mail: send the keys back and walk away.

It's interesting that homeowners have been urged that it's their moral duty, their obligation to pay, even as the Mortgage Bankers Association, itself, reneged on the mortgage on its headquarters and cut a side deal with its financial partners to get out of its underwater mortgage. Not long before this happened, John Courson, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Mortgage Bankers Association, was quoted in the press as asking defaulting homeowners, ``What about the message they will send to their family and their kids and their friends?'' What message did the Mortgage Bankers Association send? The answer is clearly that they have one set of rules, while American families have another. This blatant hypocrisy enrages ordinary families and runs counter to democratic values of fairness and equal opportunity. Homeowners are expected to do the right thing, even if we're seeing a cavalcade of financial misdeeds, shortcuts, and, in some cases, outright fraud.

I've been unable to find any good reason that homeowners should be discriminated against in bankruptcy. If it's good enough for business, it should be good enough for the homeowners.

There are lots of reasons to change that policy. First, it's simple equity, the same treatment. In addition, making bankruptcy relief available to homeowners will make the system respond to reasonable requests for renegotiations, which would be cheaper, faster, and easier than the foreclosure process for everybody. The simple act will stem the flood of foreclosures and uncertainty, which will help stabilize home values currently in free fall, and it will make it harder for another speculative bubble to be created. Knowing that homeowners will be treated the same as business in bankruptcy will make people think twice about aggregating vast numbers of dicey mortgages, simply taking a profit, and passing the package on to others.

I am introducing the Bankruptcy Equity Act to provide bankruptcy judges the power to align the homeowner's mortgage to its current value and terms and put ordinary homeowners on the same playing field as speculators and businesses. It makes sure private and federally insured mortgages are eligible for modification, allowing FHA, VA, and the Department of Agriculture to pay out claims on insured mortgages modified in bankruptcy.

For an immediate solution to the foreclosure crisis, allowing families to stay in their homes, to be treated equitably, and prevent the next bubble from forming, I strongly urge my colleagues to examine the Bankruptcy Equity for Homeowners Act and join me in treating homeowners as fairly as we treat speculators and investors.

Mr. Chair, the Republican budget is yet another missed opportunity to confront America's challenges in a balanced and responsible way. A budget is a statement of values. This budget makes it crystal clear that Republicans value tax cuts for the wealthy and special interests, even at the expense of America's middle class, our children, the elderly, and even our economic recovery. The values supported by several other budgets--the Democratic budget, the Progressive budget, and the Black Caucus budget--would restore fairness to our broken tax system, invest in rebuilding and renewing America, and maintain America's commitment to providing for our most vulnerable citizens. The bipartisan budget offered by Reps. Cooper and LaTourette fell short of the balanced approach required to address America's challenges that was contained in the Simpson-Bowles proposal.

The Republican budget cuts taxes by an additional $4.6 trillion over the next decade and extends the Bush tax cuts, totaling $10 trillion, the vast majority of which benefits the top one percent of Americans. Republicans are not serious about deficit reduction in their call to pay for this tax cut by eliminating tax expenditures and loopholes that they refuse to identify. Would they eliminate the mortgage interest deduction for middle class families? Or the employer-provided health care deduction? Independent analysts have determined it is necessary to cut the mortgage interest deduction, the health care deduction, and most other expenditures in order to pay for their $10 trillion tax cut.

Instead of making hard choices, Republicans choose to shift the burden even further onto low and middle-income families, seniors, and the next generation.

The Republican budget would cut Medicaid services for disabled individuals, children, and low-income families and seniors by $810 billion over the next decade. It would also cut $122.5 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, that lifted 3.9 million Americans, including 1.7 million children, out of poverty in 2010. This would mean 1,771 fewer jobs and 189 million fewer meals for hungry families in Oregon alone.

For decades, Medicare has guaranteed quality and affordable health care to seniors. The Republican budget ends the Medicare guarantee and would force seniors to choose to either pay thousands more dollars for their existing Medicare plan, or to buy plans with meager benefits that will ultimately put their health at risk.

Independent analyses show that infrastructure investment is one of the best ways to put people to work and to strengthen the economy, while giving families transportation options and making our communities more livable. The Republican budget would cut transportation funding by a staggering 46 percent, including for projects that have already begun, putting thousands of people out of work and stifling the fragile economic recovery. This budget is another missed opportunity to put people to work, to strengthen the economy, and to rebuild and rebuild America.

In contrast, the budgets offered by Democrats, the Progressive Caucus, and the Black Caucus take a responsible and balanced approach to putting America's finances back on a sustainable path. These budgets address the infrastructure deficit and expand access to education and job training to build a stronger America and to prepare the next generation to be the innovators that will lead us through the 21st century. These budgets restore tax fairness by asking the most well off to pay a little more. Recognizing the need to bring our troops home, eliminate wasteful weapons programs, and right-size our military, these budgets will help reduce the defense budget in a responsible way that maintains the world's strongest military and supports our troops without threatening our economic security.

I am saddened that Republicans produced a political document that continues their belief that massive tax cuts for those who need them the least will move America forward, even while they slash funding for transportation and infrastructure investment, nutrition assistance, Pell grants, and health care. The American people have rejected this unbalanced and unfair approach and so do I.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a fellow Oregonian and leader for his extraordinary service in United States Coast Guard. Rear Admiral (RADM) Ronald T. Hewitt served his country for 34 years in the Coast Guard and on April 6th, RADM Hewitt will retire as the Assistant Commandant for Human Resources at Coast Guard Headquarters, a position he has held since May 2009. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for his commitment to service and to our country.

His efforts were pivotal to improving the Service's readiness while providing advancement, professional development and quality of life enhancements for all Coast Guard personnel. He established a comprehensive strategy to enhance diversity within the Coast Guard, developing and leveraging important partnerships with Congress, the Administration, academic institutions, and key outreach and affinity organizations, setting new heights

for the number of women and minorities accessed into and retained in the Coast Guard.

Demonstrating exemplary stewardship, RADM Hewitt implemented rigorous internal controls over financial reporting, enabling the Service to accurately value and track over $7 billion in pay and medical accounts. In response to the 2010 Haiti Earthquake and Deepwater Horizon Oil spill disasters, he guided the strategic resourcing of Coast Guard personnel, including Reserve forces, for these herculean first responder events, expertly balancing immediate needs with long-term workforce sustainment. His unwavering advocacy and commitment to Coast Guard personnel and their families was evidenced through expanded child care services and subsidies, initiatives improving government owned housing, and enhancements to work-life programs. These accomplishments are remarkably significant and representative of RADM Hewitt's distinguished 34-year career in the service of his country.

A native of Sandy, Oregon, in my Congressional district, RADM Hewitt is a 1978 graduate of the United States Coast Guard Academy where he earned a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering. In 1982, he earned a Master of Science degree in electrical engineering from Purdue University. In 2000, he received a Master's Certificate in Information Technology Project Management from George Washington University and is a certified Project Management Professional.

RADM Hewitt and his wife Ann married in 1979, and they currently reside in Arlington, Virginia with their son Michael, a high school sophomore who was born during their assignment in Boston. Their daughter Laura, a recent college graduate, was born while they were stationed in Virginia during an earlier tour of duty. RADM Hewitt's parents are Wallace and Irene Hewitt of Sandy, Oregon.

RADM Hewitt's other Flag Officer assignments include Commander, Coast Guard Maintenance and Logistics Command Atlantic in Portsmouth, Virginia, and Assistant Commandant for Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology in Washington, DC, where he was detailed to the Department of Homeland Security as their acting Chief Information Officer. Earlier assignments included serving as Project Manager for the ``Rescue 21'' and the Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement systems; serving as Commanding Officer, Electronics Support Unit Boston; serving as Executive Officer, Communications Area Master Station Pacific; serving as Project Engineer at the Omega Navigation Systems Center and at the Electronics Engineering Center in Wildwood, New jersey, and in his first assignment out of the Coast Guard Academy, serving as Operations Officer on the USCGC Bittersweet.

Rear Admiral Hewitt's personal military decorations include multiple awards of the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Coast Guard Commendation Medal, the Coast Guard Achievement Medal, and the Commandant's Letter of Commendation.

Mr. Speaker, nothing is more essential to restoring the economy, revitalizing our communities, and protecting our environment than the effort to rebuild and renew America. The U.S. faces steep infrastructure challenges. Our infrastructure inventory is in poor repair and much of it is outdated--not just decades, but often centuries old. Our effort to rebuild and renew that infrastructure is stalled because of a funding impasse. The Highway Trust Fund nearly exhausted its funding several times recently and it is clear that our existing funding mechanisms are insufficient to meet our current, much less future, needs. Congress must consider new revenue sources to meet our infra-

structure challenges and must work with transportation users to find the most efficient means of raising this revenue.

I rise today to reintroduce the Heavy Truck Tax Fairness Act, bipartisan legislation to ease barriers to investment in new, heavy trucks. The funding sources for the Highway Trust Fund can be volatile, depending on the health of the economy. Current law places a 12% tax on the sale of new heavy trucks, trailers, and certain tractors. This tax is an important source of Highway Trust Fund revenues. In times of economic stress, these sales fall dramatically, badly limiting Trust Fund resources. These lost sales have several important effects. By reducing revenue to the Trust Fund, the decline hinders economic productivity by imposing costs from poor infrastructure. It also reflects an increase in the average age of the trucking fleet. New trucks have significant environmental and safety advantages, and Congress should reduce the barriers to new truck acquisition. To meet the demand for new trucks, most truck manufacturers will add employees, as most have significant engine and final assembly operations in the

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and he is absolutely right. The passage of this rule and it's approach is not the only way to avert a shutdown. And, in fact, the bill moving forward here is precisely the wrong approach because, sadly, what's going to happen is it's going to bifurcate the construction cycle.

There is work going on around the country that people want to move forward, and the approval of a 90-day extension means that people cannot plan for the entire construction cycle. If they take the gentleman's suggestion and approve the bipartisan Senate bill, there will be certainty, not just for this construction cycle, but the next year's construction cycle.

It's frustrating to watch our friends on the other side of the aisle play chicken. Remember the FAA shutdown where the Republicans in the House refused to accept a bill that passed the Senate overwhelmingly, 89 votes for the FAA? Instead they choose to leave town, putting out of work 70,000 construction workers and laid off 4,000 others in the FAA.

We don't have to play this sort of infrastructure chicken.

Later today, we are going to consider the worst budget for transportation in anybody's memory. The Republican budget that will be decided later today calls for a 46 percent reduction in transportation funding. There isn't enough money in the Republican budget to even pay for the areas that are already obligated.

I developed this, in a friendly way, in the Budget Committee, and they had to agree. There are $6.5 billion more in actual outlay, contracts, roads, bridges, and transit projects that we're committed to than they would pay for.

It's sad that we've reached this point. I hope the House rejects this rule which will allow Mr. Bishop to present the Senate bill for an up- or-down vote. The Republicans are afraid that actually there will be dozens of their Members that will join us in a bipartisan vote.

It's a pipe dream that somehow we're better off cutting the construction cycle in half, not allowing people to plan, that somehow we'll come together and merge the worst transportation bill in history that would overturn 21 years of transportation reform

and the agreement of President Reagan that we would dedicate money for transit, that we throw this out to the House bill that was so bad they wouldn't even have a hearing on it.

I served for a dozen years on the Transportation Committee. I've worked with the Transportation Committee with Republican and Democratic chairs. This is an embarrassment that the process is not working. It doesn't have to be partisan and limited. We have two high-level commissions that call for more investment and reform.

The best approach is to vote on the Senate bill today, which I'm confident will pass, which is why they don't want to bring it to a vote, and then come together to work as we get past this election ``Gong Show'' process and be able to strike what truly is a grand bargain when we have all the moving pieces at the end of the year, when we're not staring down the barrel of goofy election politics, and people will actually be able to work on what's in the best interest of America.

What's in the best interest of America is rejecting this assault on transportation and dealing with rebuilding and renewing the country.

Make no mistake, this budget is actually the heart of the budget philosophy of our friends from the other side of the aisle. This is where they want to take America. Do you remember last time it almost passed until the leadership was horrified, seeing that it was winning. Then they started twisting arms to have people change their votes so it would go down? It is disconnected from the real life consequences of average Americans and what America needs.

There's a certain irony. We just approved a short-term extension of the transportation bill which makes it impossible to use the full construction cycle this summer because the Republicans would not allow a vote on the bipartisan bill that passed the Senate. They were afraid it would pass and we would have stability for 2 years.

The Ryan Budget Committee budget will cut transportation 46 percent at a time when America's infrastructure desperately needs additional investment. And this budget doesn't even identify the depths of the cut. They shove it all into function 920, so it's disguised, but it's likely 10 percent or more below the already intolerable levels of the Ryan budget.

This is not what people are hearing from folks at home in terms of what America needs to put people back to work, to strengthen our communities, to deal with problems of water, sewer, transportation, failing bridges and transit. It fails a fundamental test of the partnership we've had for the last 66 years of a national priority to rebuild, renew, and focus on transportation and infrastructure.

This is just one more reason why we should reject both of these alternatives and support the program that has been offered by my friend from the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, today the clock is ticking here in Congress and especially on the floor of the House where people around the country would like to be preparing for the next construction season. Indeed, the most important action for the economy, for job creation, and for strengthening the livability of our communities might well be enacting the Surface Transportation Act. Sadly, so far, the news has not been good.

Later today, we debate the House Republican budget, which would slash infrastructure funding to a level less than is required simply to meet obligations for contracts that we've already entered into with people that are building roads, bridges, and transit systems. And we have an obligation to them. They're down that path and the budget sadly would not even allow the Federal Government to meet its partnership obligation.

There's more bad news as we see the Republican leadership can't come to grips with what would be required to move the transportation authorization bill forward. Last month, they offered up what has been characterized as the worst transportation bill in history. It was partisan, and it was unbalanced. It would have overturned two decades of transportation reform, undercut transit and the vital enhancement programs that communities have used to improve the quality of life and stretch their transportation resources. It even attacked bike and pedestrian programs, eliminating Safe Routes to School for our children.

Well, luckily, it collapsed under its own weight. They were afraid to even have a hearing on it before it came to the floor, and then they found out that there wasn't an opportunity to pass it. The support wasn't there in the face of united opposition around the country from people who care about transportation. At the same time, the Senate has given us a balanced and bipartisan bill. Seventy-four Members of the other body voted for it and passed it over to us.

I would hope that there is time for us to stop playing partisan ideological games with this vital transportation bill. The headlines that the Republican maneuvering has done is an embarrassment to Speaker Boehner and to Chairman Mica. But not just to the Republican leadership; it's an embarrassment to the House.

I'm sorry that my Republican friends and colleagues can't seem to agree amongst themselves about a path forward. They cannot get 218 Republican votes for any bill, even the Speaker's proposal. The good news is they don't have to. There are 435 Members of the House. If they would work in a bipartisan basis, as we have done in the past, we can stop this short-term roulette; we can give the construction industry, local government, and people in the private and public sector the certainty they need for not just this construction cycle, but the next construction cycle. We can put tens of thousands of people to work, bolster the economy, and do what Congress needs to do, what Congress has done always until this point.

I hope the Republican leadership, before we leave this week, will at least allow the bipartisan Senate bill to come to the floor to be voted on. I'm confident that a majority will support it, and we'll meet our obligations to keep America moving and the economy growing.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak, but I'm sad that we are speaking here today on what is an artful dodge on the part of my Republican friends to provide a political document instead of a meaningful budget.

First, as my good friend from Maryland just pointed out, they will slowly, surely, and steadily shift the burden to senior citizens by freezing the amounts the Federal Government will give. And it's interesting that Republicans save, they keep and then spend the money from reforming Medicare that is already ensconced in Federal law now.

This budget sets back an important opportunity to reform our tax program. Their $10 billion of tax cuts over the next 10 years will be somehow offset by closing loopholes, and they have steadily refused to identify what loopholes they can possibly close without hammering average Americans.

You cannot do it. Every independent analyst agrees that this is going to be a massive shift in tax unfairness, and it's going to put a greater burden on most Americans while it gives more assistance to those who need help the least.

As far as closing loopholes, I just spent 4 hours in the Ways and Means Committee where they provided another big tax benefit that they're going to work to try to make permanent in the future. They're trying to have it both ways without being specific.

But I will tell you the area that is of greatest disappointment to me is not just the assault on the most vulnerable. Has anybody talked to the providers in your district about the cuts to Medicare, the frail, the elderly, the poor, the most vulnerable--

But look at what is happening in transportation. This is an area, until this crew came to town, that used to be bipartisan. We used to be able to bring transportation bills to the floor and pass them in a cooperative basis. We just had a Republican bill blow up because they didn't even have a hearing. It was absolutely a partisan effort, the worst transportation bill in history. Now we're on the verge of losing the construction cycle for this summer because they will not allow the bipartisan Senate bill to come to the floor that would provide stability not just for this construction cycle but for the next construction cycle.

What are the transportation elements of this budget? Look at them carefully. They would not even provide enough money to meet the contractual obligations that States, transit districts, and cities are already involved with. Contractors are at work on projects--

Contractors are already at work, and their budget would not provide enough money to meet the obligations that we have right now, let alone build for the future. It is unfortunate, it isn't worthy of your support, and I hope you will vote ``no.''

Often, here on Capitol Hill, issues large and small get sort of lost in the fog, but it was a pleasure last week to watch some moments of clarity as hundreds of bicycle advocates flooded Capitol Hill delivering a simple, concise, powerful message that makes a difference in terms of how people live in their communities large and small. They were delivering a message that Congress ought to deal meaningfully, in a comprehensive fashion, with the transportation legislation that has been stalled. They were delivering a message of: Don't attack cycling. Embrace it as part of a comprehensive approach to transportation. It is, after all, the most efficient form of urban transportation ever designed.

Burning calories instead of fossil fuel doesn't just save you money and make you feel better, it's good for our communities. It's the cheapest, fastest way to reduce congestion and air pollution. A very simple illustration is you can

park eight to 10 bicycles where one automobile resides.

It's good for the economy. Over $6 billion a year is involved with the cycling industry, employing over a million people. They brought very specific examples. A study from Wisconsin, $1.5 billion of economic impact and 13,200 jobs in an industry that too often does not get its attention. In my community of Portland, Oregon, a medium-sized city, it's $100 million a year in our economy and well over 1,000 jobs.

Cycling is also very good for our children and our families. Being able to walk or bike safely to school helps kids actually perform better. Parents are less stressed. It could save some of the 6.5 billion trips a year of over 30 billion miles just shuttling kids back and forth to school.

People, frankly, were outraged that my Republican friends had targeted, in their transportation bill, elimination of the Safe Routes to School program. Other than them, I haven't met anybody in America who is against this program, that empowers our children and helps our families.

Now is a golden opportunity as the transportation bill collapsed and we're back at the drawing board to look at how we leverage that $8 billion that we have invested in Federal money over the last 20 years that has touched every State and hundreds of communities. Now is the time to celebrate that progress. Now is the time to commit ourselves to a comprehensive transportation bill that makes it safer to cycle and walk. Now is the time to have a transportation bill that will make every one of our communities more livable and our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.