Floor Statements

The fancy new software at use in our congressional offices gives us the ability to see all of the constituent contacts, all of their questions, complaints, and concerns by category.

I wonder if anyone in Congress has received any complaints about the Safe Routes to School program. I'll bet not. So why is the Republican transportation bill eliminating Safe Routes to School, creating an ``unsafe route to school''?

This is a wildly popular program, costing a fraction of a percent of the transportation budget, and it has had a huge impact nationally on our children because it deals with real consequences for them.

A generation ago, 40 or 50 percent of children were able to get to school on their own. Now only 13 percent can. It's no wonder that childhood obesity has exploded over the same period of time, with one in three of our children now overweight or obese or seriously at risk. Asthma has gone up for children 74 percent over the last 5 years. There are real consequences for accidents. There were 23,000 5- to 15-year- olds injured, and more than 250 kids killed walking or biking in 2009.

Getting our children to school in the morning represents 10 to 14 percent of the entire American morning commute, 6.5 billion trips stretching 30 billion miles. Doesn't it make sense to do something about the congestion, the injuries, deaths, and the obesity? Absolutely.

Twenty years ago, as Portland's commissioner of public works, I started a program in my city to help teach kids how to get to school safely and to improve road and sidewalk conditions. Ten years ago, we started a national program, Safe Routes to School. Schools with these programs show a 20 percent to 200 percent increase in the number of kids walking or biking. According to a recent California study, these students are healthier, they do better in school, and there is a 49 percent decrease in accident rates.

So why are my Republican friends advancing a transportation bill attacking Safe Routes to School, stripping it out, making it an unsafe route to school? Well, it's a fitting metaphor for perhaps the worst transportation bill in history. I think that may be one of the reasons they were afraid to even have a single hearing on the package that's coming to the floor this week.

They attacked the foundation of 20 years of balanced transportation reform. It shatters the 30-year partnership between transit and road interests that gave 80 percent to roads and 20 percent to a transit account, brokered by Ronald Reagan's administration. It undercuts the role of local governments and metropolitan areas to shape and control their own destiny, leaving them to the tender mercy of bureaucrats in their State capitals.

But it's not just Safe Routes to School. They attack high-speed rail, bicycles, Amtrak. They attack the basic environmental and public participation protections that have been gutted that actually have been very important to make sure that we have good projects that aren't held up politically or in court.

Sadly, I am very disappointed. I have worked for years on a coalition of broad interests across the spectrum of highway, professional, environmental, labor, business groups toward a good transportation bill and a coalition that can work together for the badly needed transportation resources. This Republican bill splits away valuable allies and will make it almost impossible to get the resources we need in the future. And, of course, their bill is $5 billion short for highways after taking all of these resources and stuffing them into the Highway Account.

This is, simply, the worst highway bill ever. It is the first we've seen that has not been at least a semblance of bipartisanship and is something that's never been considered in committee. Too timid to do the job, it recklessly abandons the trust fund principle, raising the ire of budget hawks for abandoning ``user pay''. It guts the most popular programs that help stretch dollars and improve communities. And, as I say, it shatters the coalition that we need to deal with the future resources.

Mercifully, this theological statement, sloppy, incomplete, and ill- considered has no chance of ever being enacted into law; but it's important that the House reject it. There is no more powerful symbol of how bankrupt this proposal is than eliminating the wildly popular and effective Safe Routes to School. If for no other reason, reject this bill for our children.

Madam Speaker, I take modest exception to my good friend from Florida. There will be no up-or-down vote on this package.

Now, service in Congress is often a roller coaster with highs and lows. Well, I've had highs and lows in my service in Congress, but this is one of the worst moments of the last 15 years.

At a time when our communities and our economy need us to rebuild and renew America, we are faced with the worst transportation bill in history, ever. It is so bad that the majority party did not even have a hearing on any of the three pieces that they've broken the transportation package into. It reverses 20 years of bipartisan transportation reform. It eliminates a 30-year commitment for transit and road funding certainty that comes from the Reagan administration, it's out the window.

It is so bad that they aren't going to allow an up-or-down vote. The strategy they have is to have the pieces dealt with individually, and then, when they're done, if they somehow pass, and I hope they don't, then it's deemed passed.

Now, what's really sad is that this is not just a partisan bill; it's a bad partisan bill. Like my friend from Massachusetts, I served on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for 12 years, and most of that time, Republicans were in charge. But we never, ever had behavior like this--shutting people out, shutting down the process, not involving the public, and moving in the wrong direction.

It shatters a bipartisan coalition that I've been working on for years to develop support for resources and good policy. It's even so bad they get rid of the wildly popular Safe Routes to School program.

It's not worthy of the proud tradition of the T&I Committee or, for that matter, even the Rules Committee. It should be rejected.

Madam Speaker, I support the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge, STOCK, Act. This bill clarifies that Members of Congress, congressional staff, executive branch officials, and judicial officers are subject to the same insider trading rules as everyone else. It is common sense to ensure that taxpayers do not pay the salary of people who take advantage of privileged conversations to make a profit. I am pleased that the STOCK Act has such strong bipartisan support, but I am disappointed in the way that Republican leaders are ushering the bill through the House.

For a bill that ends insider trading and is supposed to bring transparency to the influence peddling industry in Washington, it is disappointing that--literally in the dark of night--Republican leaders listened to the complaints of lobbyists and changed the bill. Republicans removed two important provisions that shine light on the shadowy world of political intelligence and that empower federal investigators to bring criminal corruption charges against public officials.

The STOCK Act that I cosponsor, and that passed the Senate with 96 votes, requires that political intelligence consultants register their activities, similar to the manner of lobbyists. These consultants gather inside information from Members of Congress and staff and then sell that information to Wall Street, lobbyists

and hedge funds. This is a $400 million industry and yet we know very little about it; political intelligence consultants work in anonymity.

Public officials are entrusted by the public to conduct their duties with integrity. Those who abuse this trust should be held accountable and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That is why the original version of the STOCK Act gave prosecutors tools to identify, investigate, and prosecute criminal conduct by public officials. This is an important provision that holds public officials accountable for their actions and protects the integrity of government institutions.

These two provisions should be reinstated when the House and Senate go to conference.

Despite its shortcomings, the STOCK Act offers much to support. In addition to the insider trading rules, this bill expands existing law that bans Congressional pensions for Members of Congress convicted of committing a felony. It also prohibits bonuses for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives while the GSEs are still supported by taxpayer dollars.

It is important that Members of Congress be held to the same ethical standards as our constituents. The STOCK Act is a critical piece of legislation that is long overdue. I am pleased that it is moving forward with strong bipartisan support, but I hope that it is strengthened when the House and Senate go to conference.

Mr. Chair, I support H.R. 3521, the Expedited Line- Item Veto and Rescissions Act, which creates a process enabling the President to propose the elimination of certain individual spending items that he deems unnecessary and to submit those eliminations to Congress for an expedited vote. This may prove to be a useful tool to ensure that our government closely stewards important taxpayer dollars. It is disappointing, however, that such a tool should be necessary.

Our constitution vests Members of Congress with the responsibility to raise and spend revenue to provide for the general welfare of the United States. In other words, we are obligated to invest taxpayer dollars in ways that grow our economy, protect our environment and public health, defend our nation, educate

our children, and build a strong infrastructure. In sum, Congress has the responsibility to keep America competitive in the 21st century.

It is my hope that the President will not need to use this new power. Unfortunately, Congress has too often shown that it is unable to make the hard choices necessary--on unnecessary weapons systems, on subsidizing big agribusiness, on the provision of expensive tax benefits to the oil industry--to eliminate wasteful spending.

I support H.R. 3521, but I remain hopeful that Congress finds the will to act responsibly and avoids use by the President of a line item veto.

Mr. Chair, while I agree that the federal government must find a way to dispose of unused federal government property properly, I voted against H.R. 1734, because this legislation turns the federal government into a worse partner than it already is.

There is a way to save federal government dollars and reduce our property holdings while working in cooperation with local governments and the local population. Rather than working with local governments and respecting the plans they have implemented, this legislation ignores plans that are already in place, and does not give community leaders a chance to participate in any part of the property realignment. Additionally, the legislation overrides important environmental regulation that has helped protect our communities for decades.

It is frustrating that my colleagues refused to work in a bipartisan fashion, or even to work with local governments, to develop a better way to dispose of excess federal property. I look forward to working with my colleagues to find a solution we can all agree on.

Mr. Speaker, this week, people from dozens of cities around America are gathering for the annual Streetcar Summit.

For the last 25 years, I've been working to reintroduce the modern streetcar to American communities. We started with a project in Portland, Oregon, over 20 years ago. It was a great pleasure for me to see this open in 2001 and watch how this streetcar investment anchored revitalization in the downtown, led to over $3 billion of private and public investment along the right-of-way, encouraged over 22 million people to ride the streetcar, and developed into a signature project for our community.

More recently, when the new administration was sworn into office, I worked with the White House to implement legislation that I had in the last reauthorization that we called ``Small Starts,'' which somehow had stalled. Within 4 months, the new administration was able to help us figure out how to move it forward. In October of 2009, we were able to sign an agreement with the Obama administration and start the project.

I'm pleased to report that this project--which has provided over 1,800 jobs, that is extending a 3\1/3\-mile line--will be open. In fact, we've invited President Obama to ride on the first official trip. He can ride this year on a project that started in the first year of his administration, now a completed project. As an added bonus, he would be able to ride the first American-built streetcar in 58 years.

While it's manufactured in Portland, Oregon--I say with some modest pride--it makes a difference for people around the country because it's going to be provided to other communities like Tucson, Arizona, in the project I worked on with our former colleague, Gabby Giffords. And subcontracting is occurring throughout the upper Midwest, where smaller manufacturers are helping construct this product made in America.

As a result of the administration's investment of $419 million since October of 2009, we're watching projects take place in 10 cities across America--in Detroit, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Salt Lake--that are moving forward with this vision. Indeed, the people in the conference that will be here this week represent operating systems that are now in Seattle, San Francisco, Galveston, Little Rock, Memphis, New Orleans, Lowell, Massachusetts, Kenosha, Wisconsin. There are communities all across America that have seized this vision and are moving forward. They are coming together to deal with how communities, large and small, can seize on this proven technology that was, after all, the cornerstone of urban development long about 1900. This was the technology that was driving American community development. Well, it still can drive community development, provide tens of thousands of jobs, be able to help focus the revitalization of, what in some areas, are troubled neighborhoods. It's an opportunity to bring people together on the streetscape, to be able to give a different environment for shopping, recreating, and, frankly, preventing pollution, congestion--in many cases a trip not taken.

I strongly urge my colleagues, when the opportunity arises this week, to meet some of the people in the vanguard of America's new streetcar renaissance. A simple, commonsense, proven technology that's cost- effective, that provides an anchor for development, giving people an opportunity to give another choice to the residents--empowering them, making their neighborhoods more livable, their families safer, healthier, and more economically secured.

This is what this Congress should be working on, coming together to take projects like this, a constructive Federal partnership, stretching dollars and making a success that we can all be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, today, I voted against the Conference Report for the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act. While I appreciate the fact that after twenty six extensions we have finally come together in a bicameral, bipartisan fashion to reauthorize our airport system and help bring it into the 21st century, the

language regarding union elections and mandating that the National Labor Relations Board change its decision is unacceptable. I am sadly forced to vote no.

This bill makes the dangerous precedent of interfering with the National Labor Relations Board. While I am very glad that it does not repeat the disastrous mistake in the original House legislation, I am concerned about the increased requirements to simply hold a union election. There is no reason for Congress to muddle with fair decisions made by the National Labor Relations Board, and I am disappointed that my Republican colleagues insist on doing so.

I appreciate the resolution reached on the National Airport slots issue, and the increased attention paid to airport modernization and NextGen funding. I also appreciate the work of my Senate colleagues in protecting Oregon's scenic spaces. There is much in this bill to support, and it saddens me that so much hard work and bipartisan cooperation is undone by a blatant attack on the rights of our workers to organize.

Oregon lost an amazing pioneer with the death of Gail Achterman last weekend. At the moment Gail was drawing her last breath, this remarkable woman's husband, Chuck McGinnis, was telling me the story of how she had won his heart as he listened to her give a lecture on the Taylor Grazing Act.

That tells you all you need to know, actually, about both of them: that her lecture on an obscure Federal law could spark a whirlwind romance and a marriage of over 30 years. That is part of what made Gail such a remarkable woman. A three-sport letterwoman at Stanford University--in basketball, track, and swimming. An accomplished lawyer, public policy analyst, civic volunteer par excellence, and more.

Each of the many roles she played during her too-short life but stellar four-decade career were characterized by her insight, drive, comprehensive view of the world, and commitment to excellence. She was a pioneer in every sense of the word--from big-time women's athletics to being the first woman to chair Oregon's transportation commission. She was not just breaking ground for women but being a leader and a role model for anyone who wanted to both excel and make a difference.

Oregon was fortunate to have her as one of America's finest natural resources lawyers, practicing in Portland at one of the State's largest law firms, Stoel Rives. She rose to become a partner in the firm, leaving for 4 years to become the Governor's senior adviser on natural resources and helping to navigate some of Oregon's most difficult challenges in the 1980s.

What for most people would have been at the very height of her career, she left the law firm to retire to lead the Deschutes River Conservancy in central Oregon and then in 2003 to become director of the Institute of Natural Resources at Oregon State University.

During all of this time, she was involved in civic affairs and professional activities too numerous to mention, giving speeches, lectures, consulting with people throughout her beloved Pacific Northwest and around America.

During the last 10 years, she served on Oregon's transportation commission, the last term as its chair where she guided some of the most innovative approaches in the Nation to our transportation infrastructure challenges. Her work and leadership helped spark Oregon's economy and community revitalization.

She also won environmental and civic awards. The last I witnessed was a few months ago from the pedestrian community because of her leadership and understanding of a transportation system that worked for everybody: truckers, railroad, bikes, and pedestrians.

She was part of our celebration last summer of the 25th anniversary of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Act in recognition of the role she helped play in drafting Senator Mark Hatfield's legislation that led to the protection of this priceless national treasure.

At the time of her passing, Gail had been focusing her attention on the future of the Willamette River Valley and the need for a comprehensive approach to its needs and opportunities.

Even in her last month, Gail's vision and commitment and insight were focused on the big picture. But everything about Gail seemed to be big picture and larger than life, whether rowing on the river, cross- country skiing, in the gym exercising, or presiding over a public hearing. Passion, focus, commitment, and the joy of getting a job done well were her signature characteristics. It was always part of that bigger picture, especially of land use and transportation, and water for our future.

She epitomized the strength of Oregon public policy, understanding how the pieces fit together and then translating that knowledge to others in a very understated, but powerful, way and ultimately helping find its way into public policy and action.

She was an extraordinary daughter of Oregon. She will be missed by all who knew her and appreciated her for the difference she made for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, at this moment, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is working on what is arguably the worst transportation bill in the history of Congress--just when we need the best. It's not just wrong sized with too few esources from the wrong sources. It fails to protect the integrity of the trust fund, inviting opposition from budget hawks.

It reverses 20 years of transportation reform by attacking the cheapest way to develop highway capacity in most communities, transit and cycling. It even eliminates the Safe Routes to School program for our children.

I hope my staff heard wrong that the committee chair will deny participation to anybody who asks for a vote on a provision, not just in committee, but will not even be able to offer an amendment on the floor. Let's get back to the bipartisan tradition to have infrastructure that America needs.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and his leadership.

What we're talking about here this afternoon is one of a package of four budget proposals from our Republican friends on the Budget Committee that are, in toto, going to obscure the budgeting process, make it more complex, more expensive, and actually more confusing for the American public.

I agree with what my good friend said about the dynamic scoring. There are already vehicles available to be able to deal with some of these feedback effects but not elevating it to the level of some sort of official score. Frankly, we've seen when the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, which is established as the impartial scorekeeper, puts out information, like we discussed here today in the Budget Committee, on how much impact the Recovery Act had on employment, on GDP enhancement, on job growth. People just simply refuse to accept the range, the calculations, things that all the independent experts agree upon, including our own official one. So we're going to make their job more confusing; we're going to make it more complex and give the American public a less clear picture.

Get ready folks. My good friend from Georgia wants to deal with freezing all baseline budgets, that are not otherwise specified in law, assuming that there will be no increase for population growth or inflation over 10 years. Everybody in Congress who looks at what has happened over the last 50 years understands there will be some adjustment--we may argue about how much--but if you're going to give the American public an estimate of what is the most likely outcome, having a modest inflation adjustment is the most accurate in terms of what is likely to happen. That would be swept away and an artificial figure established by biennial budgeting.

There is a reason why the number of States, almost all of which used to have biennial budgeting, have moved to annual budgets. It's because they're more accurate; they're less complex; they're less expensive; and it doesn't pose as much of a burden on both the legislative branch and the administration to try and fiddle around with things that we know are inaccurate. Then we're going to have the risk adjustment, which will take something which is already accurately portrayed in terms of the budget, and they're going to be adding and subtracting values that are going to only confuse.

The four of them are an example of why my friends on the other side of the aisle don't want to get to work and deal with things that we might agree on, like reforming agriculture. Instead, we're playing games with procedures that are going to give the American public less information, and it's going to cost us more to confuse them.

Mr. Speaker, Americans know that Congress is broken, paralyzed by hyperpartisanship, fierce ideology, and unwillingness to respond to widely understood problems with broadly supported solutions.

Why, at a time of growth and increasing diversity in America, does Congress not represent that change?

Well, part of the answer is that's not how we're elected. Increasingly, we come from districts that are not just red or blue, but the colors are brighter, the divisions deeper. How can this be?

The answer is to be found in hallways and back rooms of State capitals all all across America right now. After the census every 10 years, the great re-balancing occurs, to adjust legislative districts to changes in populations. Some States will win or lose congressional seats. Every district in the 43 States that have multi-Member districts will see some adjustment to balance out changes in population growth.

But not all voters are equal. Some are more, some are less inclined to support the party in power or to support a particular incumbent.

One thing that politicians can all agree upon is that their district should be safer, their party should be favored. The process of redistricting has been refined to a high art with the computer, very sophisticated survey research, a treasure trove of data on voter behavior. In short, the politicians are hard at work picking their voters in a way that will make it harder for voters, over the next 10 years, to pick their politicians.

Now, Exhibit A is a grotesque district that has been created in the State of North Carolina, District Four, currently represented by our colleague, Congressman David Price, that looks like somebody had just taken an egg and thrown it at the blackboard. But this effort, where a 50/50 State that went for Obama, that has a Democratic Senator, a Democratic Governor, and a 7-6 advantage for Democrats in Congress now, has been at work with the Republicans and their legislature to try to turn it into a 10-3 advantage for Republicans going forward after the next election.

But I could have taken an example in Illinois, where there Democrats are sort of reverse engineering those districts to Democratic advantages.

There is a bright spot for years, and that has been Iowa, where the process has been driven by an independent agency that draws districts without partisan logrolling, and simply is referred to the legislature for an up-or-down vote.

This year, all four districts in Iowa are competitive. One even features two incumbent senior Members of Congress that are running against each other.

There are other bright spots in California and Arizona where voters have determined that there will be independent commissions. There is even some hope in Florida where there are more constraints on the politicians in the redistricting. But make no mistake, it is not just one party losing when another party takes unfair advantage. In truth, everybody loses.

There is less representative behavior in Congress. We have districts drawn without integrity. It is hard to represent people. It is hard for people to understand who is representing them, and it shatters local interests.

Most damaging, I think, is it just reveals a naked power grab that further undermines people's confidence in the political process. We shouldn't have to wait decades for reform at the State level. We saw in Arizona where Governor Brewer tried to fire the head of the independent redistricting commission because the commission produced some districts that were fair and competitive, not tilted partisan.

These reforms can actually be sabotaged. I'm proposing H.R. 3846 to establish a national independent redistricting commission headed by Statespeople, if you will, people who are appointed by legislative leadership like retired judges or former Presidents. These people would oversee a professional agency like they have in Iowa to make sure that we have national uniform standards that are fair, maybe even some competitive districts, and stop the political log rolling, to prepare a national set of maps that would be subjected to an up-or-down vote by Congress.

A lot of this seems beyond our control in the political process. This bill is something we could do to make the process better 10 years from now. I urge my colleagues to look at House bill 3846.

Mr. Speaker, over the last few months, we have seen one opinion survey after another showing that Congress is facing record low approval ratings, hovering around 12 percent.

It's no coincidence that at the same time we've seen a surge in political activity from both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements, expressing a shared frustration and distrust of Washington.

Underpinning America's disapproval of Congress is a broken political system, ranging from anachronistic Senate procedure to the recent Citizens United ruling. The budget battles of this Congress extend and amplify this trend.

While there is no silver bullet to ``fix'' what's ailing our Government, many experts and the public agree that we need comprehensive redistricting reform as a means to tone down the partisanship and make it possible to enact change. Under the current system, redrawing Congressional district boundaries every ten years continuously sends Congress down the path to partisan gridlock.

It's the worst kept secret in Washington that our current redistricting process too often gives incumbent politicians more influence over picking their voters, than voters have in picking their politicians.

Both political parties have developed the redistricting process into an art form, punishing opponents and protecting incumbents. Just

last week, House Speaker John Boehner told POLITICO that Republicans will hold the House for the next decade thanks to the once-in-a-decade redistricting process that has made the GOP's hold on the majority ``ironclad.''

I don't know about you, but I don't think the American public wants elections to be pre-cooked, a decade at a time. Politicians should not be allowed to achieve through the redistricting process what they can't accomplish at the ballot box. And regardless of whether the Speaker is right or not, the optics are disheartening and more than enough to further depress voter turnout.

Outside the beltway, there is very little that separates the average person in their political beliefs. But when you have a redistricting system where incumbents don't feel accountable in general elections, but fear attack in the primary, politicians are forced further and further to the left or right, ultimately skewing the membership of Congress. This is a system that rewards ideological extremes, punishes those who have nuanced or moderate positions, and closes the door on compromise before anyone even gets to Washington.

Even though elections are just around the corner, only 22 states have approved final district maps, leaving voters uncertain about who their candidate will be and furthering the already substantial incumbent advantage. There is hope, however, in states that have adopted independent redistricting commissions. All but one of these 13 states have already finalized their Congressional districts, making up a majority of the national total, and representing a small fraction--two of the 11 states--that are duking it out in court.

Redistricting reform isn't a Democrat or Republican idea. Indeed, it's bipartisan as seen in California and Florida where in 2010, both states--California controlled by Democrats in both chambers, and Florida controlled by Republicans in both chambers--enacted bipartisan redistricting reform.

While reform is slowly taking hold, the process remains woefully inadequate and subject to political abuse. The temptation to place partisan objectives above the public interest is just too enticing.

To make Congress more representative, all districts in all states should follow the same balanced metrics and criteria for redistricting, instead of the corrupt system we have today that's makes some states less fair and representative than others. That is why I have introduced legislation that would create the National Commission for Independent Redistricting.

The Commission would be composed of respected leaders with a proven commitment to public service and strengthening our future, such as ex- Presidents, retired Federal justices, previous congressional leaders, and electoral experts from academia. The Commission would oversee an independent, professional agency, tasked with establishing uniform criteria and congressional district lines for each State that respects the communities of interest, and geographic, ethnic, cultural, and historic boundaries, rather than just partisan affiliation.

The Commission would also inject greater transparency and accountability into the process by requiring robust public consultation and commentary that must be taken into account, and a website where all maps, hearings, votes with concurring and dissenting opinions, and materials would be made public in a timely fashion.

Congress would then approve or disapprove of the proposal put forward by the Commission with a simple up-or-down vote, free from procedural gridlock.

Congress should enact this legislation now, well before the next census in 2020. With six elections and nearly a decade standing between current politicians and the next Census, now is the time to reform our redistricting process and act in a way that reflects broad public interests rather than narrow and immediate partisanship.

Meaningful political reform is seldom easy and it takes time. Instead of each state passing their own version of what might as well be called ``The Incumbent Protection Act'' every 10 years, I am hopeful that there will be careful consideration of this proposal as a way to make the House of Representatives fairer, more representative, and more effective for this new century.

Thank you. I deeply appreciate your courtesy in permitting me to speak, and I appreciate your leadership in coming to the floor this evening and focusing on the importance of our being able to make goods and services in this country, particularly manufacturing. There is an element, as you referenced, that is the quickest way to jump-start the economy, that would be the largest source of family-wage jobs and which would tie into a whole host of contractors and subcontractors of people who make equipment operations in this country.

You're right. Our Republican colleagues have offered up a proposal to reauthorize the Surface Transportation Act. I'm pleased to at least see something come to the floor, because the act expired 850 days ago.

The notion of our transportation legislation used to be an area of bipartisan cooperation. It was something that people from both sides of the aisle worked on and came together to focus on how we strengthen our communities, how we put people to work and how we improve the environment, transportation, and mobility. Sadly, one of the casualties of the hyperpartisan environment was this notion that we worked together cooperatively in the legislation. My Democratic colleagues did not see the legislation. At first, I was concerned that they weren't brought in to be a part of this process that I always enjoyed as a minority party member back in the day. But now when we see the legislation, we understand perhaps why it wasn't as open and transparent.

This is a piece of legislation that for the next 5 years is going to dramatically underinvest in infrastructure. It is claimed that it's a $260 billion piece of legislation, but the revenues that they anticipate from oil and gas drilling in the Arctic are ephemeral. CBO tells us it may be 50, so it's going to have a $50 billion to $60 billion shortfall.

It guts environmental protections. It removes the power of local communities to plan cooperatively on this legislation and to be able to make sure that it meets their needs.

It is appalling to me, at a time when we are looking for ways to make things in America, to strengthen the manufacturing base, to move goods and services and put people to work at family wage jobs, that we are seeing a piece of legislation come forward that represents a failure of imagination. It doesn't even comport with what bipartisan commissions from the Bush administration recommended that it be funded at. It loses a chance for us to be able to have Americans deal with the steel, Americans deal with the equipment, Americans putting these pieces together. And over the course of the evening tonight we may be able to perhaps return to this, but I think it's important to look at this failure of vision, failure of will, failure of imagination in a way that's going to dramatically undercut the proposals to make it in America and put Americans to work.

I really appreciate what my colleagues have focused on.

Mr. Altmire referenced the infrastructure deficit in this country. The American Society of Civil Engineers does a 5-year assessment. The latest assessment gave American infrastructure grades of C, C minus, D, with a total unmet need over the next 5 years of $2.2 trillion just to bring it up to standard.

They have done another interesting study talking about the cost of not dealing with the improvements. Hundreds of billions of dollars of cost are going to be visited upon the American public because we don't bring our water infrastructure up to standard.

I see from my friend from western Pennsylvania that we leak from our underwater pipes in this country 6 billion gallons a day, enough to fill 9,000 olympic-sized swimming pools that would stretch from the Capitol, where we are standing, to my friend's district in western Pennsylvania. We can do better.

The notion of talking about the consequences of not investing in American companies--I appreciate both of you talking about that bridge segment. The $400 million that was invested for an inferior product was money that didn't deal with our manufacturing infrastructure here. It meant not only we were giving money to our competitors, but there were thousands of American workers who didn't have the work and the suppliers and subcontractors that would have been part of the manufacturing chain.

In my district, we are constructing the first American-built streetcar in 58 years. These streetcars are going to be running in Portland, Oregon, in their streetcar system. It is going to be in Tucson, with our dear friend Gabby Giffords in the system she fought for, and in Washington, DC. It is not just that these streetcars are manufactured in Portland, Oregon, but there are dozens of subcontractors' manufacturing operations throughout the Midwest that get components to build as part of this.

It is part of the virtuous cycle where, when we focus, when we invest in making it in America, we are rebuilding and renewing our communities, meeting vast unmet needs that will not just revitalize the economy but make our communities safer and healthier. Remember, each billion dollars that is invested in infrastructure creates 30,000 jobs in America.

We can make it in America. We should start with rebuilding and renewing America.

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

I appreciate, as always, the opportunity to exchange views with my good friend from Wisconsin, the chair of the Budget Committee, with whom I've been pleased to work with on some items. Occasionally, rarely, we're opposed, but this is one of those areas where I do have some concerns.

When I hear my friend talk about empty rhetoric and broken promises, I am reminded of what the Republican agenda has been to this point in this Congress--debt, doubt, and decline. Debt, doubt, and decline. Well, I think that that's a pretty good assessment of what had been offered up by my good friends when they had an opportunity this last year to present their vision.

Now they attempt to lay this off somehow on the Senate. And we all have had our frustrations with the other body. But the fact is, the problem that we face in terms of being able to work regular order, is that there has been a decision by the minority leader in the other body.

The senior Senator from Kentucky, the Republican leader, has been very clear. His number one priority is not putting Americans back to work. It's not dealing with the challenges we face at home and abroad. It is to make sure that President Obama is not reelected. And when you start from that premise and radiate out, we have seen the Senate, which has never been, shall we say, nimble, has slowed to a crawl. We have seen an unprecedented effort to make even the most modest and mundane efforts over there require a supermajority.

It's unprecedented. It is sad. The American people deserve better. But it is Republican obstruction that has twisted the rules of the Senate to make it nonfunctional.

Debt, doubt, and decline. The Republican budget, notwithstanding all the pyrotechnics and the effort to spread doubt about whether or not the United States would honor its commitment, paying the national debt for debt that is already incurred, which occupied too much time this summer, an absolutely manufactured crisis, the Republican budget authored by my good friend from Wisconsin, itself, would have required increasing the debt ceiling.

And when you talk about decline, my Republican friends have failed to move forward with meaningful job creation. We've had, languishing, a reauthorization for the Surface Transportation Act, which we've had to extend eight times. And, in fact, the Republican budget actions to this date are cutting back on investment in water, in transportation, things that would put Americans to work all across America.

And as for bureaucratic rationing of health care, I'm surprised my good friend can say that with a straight face because, remember, his budget takes the half trillion dollars and accepts it. He doesn't unwind it. He doesn't change it. He accepts it. They count on it because they know that, in fact, there are opportunities for us to strengthen Medicare without ending the guarantee that two generations of senior citizens have relied upon to be able to have the Medicare payments when they need them.

We have the opportunity to refine and reform Medicare, to provide better service for our seniors and eliminate unnecessary expenditures. There was a time when those agenda items, not the rhetoric, not vouchering this and slashing that, but what was required to move forward to actually reform Medicare, that has been bipartisan. It's been agreed to. It's being practiced by health care systems in Wisconsin, in Oregon. We know what to do. We have the opportunity to do it. Unfortunately, the Republican approach to this point has been to assume that it's too expensive, that we can't do it. It's too expensive for the Federal Government, so we're going to transfer the risk to the next generation of senior citizens but taking advantage of the savings under the Affordable Care Act.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we're going through an exercise today that is largely beside the point. What we should be doing is dealing with pieces of legislation that would have bipartisan support, moving forward, accelerating health care reform, rebuilding and renewing America, taking things like the work that I've done with my good friend from Wisconsin in terms of reforming the agricultural system that wastes too much money on the wrong people, doing the wrong things. We could be moving forward on a constructive agenda that the Occupy Wall Street people and the Tea Party folks could actually get behind.

Unfortunately, today, this H. Res. 516 is another sidetrack that gets us away from doing what we should do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I yield myself 2 minutes.

It's interesting to watch my friend's attempt to reframe the issue away from proposals that they have offered and the inartful budgetary fiscal activities of this last year. It was, after all, a Republican choice to halt the operation of the other body, essentially shutting down the Senate, by requiring supermajorities on everything.

We started the year with the threat of government shutdown. You recall we went to just minutes away from having to shut down the Federal Government over a basically theological argument on the part of my friends on the other side of the aisle over things like Planned Parenthood and Big Bird.

Then this summer we had cast doubt for the first time in history about whether we were actually going to honor the requirement to pay the debt for obligations we'd already incurred. This summer the Republicans were willing to leave town, and we actually shot the hostage when it came to the FAA: 70,000 people were idled on construction projects for aviation; 4,000 employees laid off.

Then this fall and into the winter, we had the spectacle of what should be a relatively routine effort, and has been a routine effort for Republicans and Democrats alike, dealing with things

like the extension of unemployment insurance and avoiding a draconian impact with the sustainable growth rate, the SGR, the doc fix. We watched our Republican friends in the House and Senate unable to communicate, and we ended up having a situation where they just basically turned their backs on the American people and were going to insist it was their way or the highway again.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

It took days for, finally, reason to settle in when even the Republicans in the Senate had to say, no, well, this is the deal that we had. There appears to be a lack of accord on behalf of the new majority in the House, we're still spinning around.

And all the time we're dealing with things like this that are a sideshow when the majority of what really makes the difference, how we spend the money, these appropriation bills, the majority of which haven't even come out of the Republican-controlled committee to the Republican-controlled House to be passed, when we actually should be working on the next fiscal year.

So we'll endure the sideshow. This will pass. It will not really do anything other than sort of trying to be the pivot point in trying to spin the issue. But it would be nice at some point to stop the spin and the things that are beside the point, and maybe encourage the Republicans to agree amongst themselves, come into accord between the House and the Senate, and maybe get some of these appropriations bills to the floor so we can see where we're going.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I agree with the goal of my good friend from Wisconsin about making sure that we deal with our long-term problems of budget deficits and national debt, and certainly look forward to working together moving down a path to prosperity. But we have slightly different ways of going about this, and it is unfortunate because I think if we really had full and open debate on the floor of the House, if we hadn't accepted draconian rules that make it very hard to be able to discuss on the floor the opportunity to have a balanced approach that would include, for example, eliminating unnecessary tax breaks for industries that no longer need them, or adjusting the Tax Code so we wouldn't have the anomaly of where people worth hundreds of millions of dollars--the most recent example of Mr. Romney releasing his tax returns, where he is paying less than 15 percent due to the use of carried interest long after he left his former employer. These are things that we could do that the American public agrees with and that would help have a balanced approach that ultimately would make a difference.

I am, as I mentioned, a little bit perplexed that we are going to continue to beat up on the Senate, although that's always fun, to whack around the other body, but the point is that the dysfunction of the Senate is a Republican choice to shut it down, require extraordinary majorities for the most routine of items. We see it with judicial appointments that have been cleared out of committee, that have bipartisan support, that the minority in the other body, the Republican Party, won't even allow to move forward when we have a serious crisis in a number of the areas of our judiciary.

We have watched where there's long on rhetoric, but when it comes time to just getting the budgets done for this year, there are six major appropriations bills for this year, and we're now 5 months into the fiscal year, that are languishing, that have not passed out of the Republican committee to the Republican-controlled House to at least start the process going.

Now, today in the Budget Committee we had a fascinating intellectual exercise. There were four bills that were considered. We're moving these items to the House floor, each and every one of which was an interesting intellectual exercise, but in the name of transparency and simplicity and giving the American public a fuller picture, every one of them clouds the budget picture, whether it's so-called dynamic scoring that won't deal with important investments like infrastructure and give the people a great picture, but it will muddy the waters in terms of the impact on legislation coming forward.

Biennial budgets, when we can't move forward now with appropriations on an annual basis, will institutionalize the sideshow. We'll do it twice; we'll require the bureaucracy to generate more information over a longer timeframe that will be more inaccurate. It flies in the face of what is happening in the States--which have been referred to as the laboratories of democracy--which used to have biennial budgets, and the majority are moving away because it doesn't work, it is inaccurate, and it requires extra work. This is part of the Republican approach, to move in this direction.

Freezing baseline budgets will make long-term budgeting less accurate and make it harder to really assess what the budgetary costs and consequences are going to be.

And then there's a little thing that deals with risk adjustment that would require the current process, where there is an absolute accurate appraisal of what will happen with Federal loans and their performance, but because it doesn't deal with their academic

model, will require a risk adjustment premium and further budget balancing. And I defy any Member of the House to explain to any of their constituency, even pretty sophisticated people, why this is an improvement for greater transparency and accuracy.

The point is it's continuing a side show instead of working together on what the American public wants. They want a balanced solution. And if we didn't have the vast majority of the people in the House and the Senate pledging their fealty to an unelected lobbyist, pledging never to increase taxes, we could have moved with the supercommittee and moved forward and done something.

It is time for us to stop the gimmicks, maybe work together doing what the American public wants so that we can deal with avoiding a debt crisis and get us launched on a path to prosperity that the American public would agree with.

We begin the new year on the same sour note with which we concluded 2011--an appalling year, full of fabricated crises that didn't need to happen but which produced real-life consequences, the debt ceiling debacle being but one example. The Republican nomination of a Presidential candidate is showing the dark side of this new era of Super PACs and what happens when a party is captive to ideological extremists.

Even if you're not a Republican, it's a sad indictment. We need two constructive, effective, responsible political parties, or at least as close as we can come. It is past time to respond to things that Americans need and support.

It really doesn't need to be this hard.

I would suggest that one test going forward would be dealing with issues that could be supported by both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street protesters--both movements responses to a shared concern that Americans are being shortchanged, that America is on a path that is not sustainable, and of a political process that is unable to respond to their needs. Both movements are understandable and have valid concerns, that the political process is too often stacked against people trying to make changes in how we do business.

The degree of overlap between the two narratives is very encouraging, and I think it is healthy that both have found political expression. The question is the extent to which people who identify with these movements can identify with each other and with practical, achievable responses.

I think they can.

This year, I hope that both sides of the aisle here in Congress will think about what those shared objectives might be.

Agricultural reform ought to be at the very top of the list. We have a system that the right and the left can agree shortchanges most farmers and ranchers and is far too expensive. It is tilted towards large agribusiness, not to smaller operations--the quintessential family farm. We know we can do better to help more people while we save taxpayer money, improve the environment, and enhance the health of our children in dealing with school nutrition.

Another major area of agreement deals with American leadership in helping the 2 billion poor people around the world who do not have access to safe drinking water or adequate sanitation or, tragically, to both. The United States has the potential to dramatically enhance the effectiveness of the work we are already doing and the money we are already spending. I am pleased we have bipartisan legislation with my friend Ted Poe from Texas as the lead Republican to enhance these international water and sanitation efforts.

For years, I've been working to enhance the capacity of our health care system to help people when they are most vulnerable. This has commonly been referred to as ``end of life,'' but it is not just that-- it is much more. It is any time people are in difficult medical conditions, when they may lose control over what happens to them. We need to

make sure that people understand their choices, are able to articulate what they and their families want, and that their health care wishes, whatever they may be, are respected.

This bipartisan concept got caught up in the madness of the 2009 political lie of the year--death panels--but it's now time to revisit it. It's overwhelmingly supported by the American people, including the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. It costs nothing, and will help enhance the well-being of our families.

There is a golden opportunity to come together around a collective vision of rebuilding and renewing America. This is happening at the State and local levels as people are uniting around their visions and putting up money to achieve it. This is the fastest way to revitalize the economy and protect our quality of life, and the Federal Government should be playing.

While I strongly support efforts to correct the distorting and, in some ways, corruption of the political process by avalanches of secret money that are now savaging Republican candidates for the Presidential nomination, there is another corrupting process that is taking place for which there are no constitutional barriers to remediate--the legislative redistricting process. In most States, it's a scandal where politicians pick the voters rather than voters being able to pick the politicians. We all ought to identify with reform efforts that are emerging in this area.

These are five simple steps that don't cost money and certainly, in the long run, will save money while they enhance the integrity of the system. They can strengthen the economy while revitalizing the political process and addressing the frustrations of both Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.