As the author of H.R. 4848, the Repeal & Rebuild Act, I must respond to the editorial board’s gross mischaracterization of what my bill would, and would not do, to address the Highway Trust Fund deficit.

First, the editorial board was flat wrong when it said my bill would double the tax on diesel fuel. This is not true. In fact, I proposed indexing the tax, which is a common-sense way to adjust for higher construction costs and increased fuel efficiency. The indexation is so gradual (on average 2.1 cents a year) that even after 10 years, the tax still would not be double.

What’s more, my proposal has the full support of trucking industry groups, such as the American Trucking Associations, who actually pay the diesel tax. Truckers rely upon safe, efficient highways and bridges perhaps more than anyone. I commend ATA for acknowledging the need for more revenue and stepping up to pay for it.

While gas prices constantly fluctuate, there is a good chance my bill would actually help drive down prices at the pump. According to RAND, 7 percent of the wholesale tax in my bill will be absorbed by oil companies and not passed on to consumers. That means an instant 7 percent savings. Furthermore, my bill starts the tax at a lower rate than today’s gas tax, providing additional instant relief for drivers. This is not a trick. This is basic math.

A few right-wing think tanks have proposals to “fix” the Highway Trust Fund. One would revert to tolling. That may work in the Northeast corridor, where short trips are commonplace, but tolling wide swaths of the West would disproportionately impact drivers here. The right wing’s other idea? Just let the Highway Trust Fund go broke and let our once-connected interstate system become a thing of the past. They call this devolution.

As The Bulletin editorial board correctly pointed out, our country needs a solution to the Highway Trust Fund or else construction projects will come to a halt and hundreds of thousands of people will lose their jobs. I proposed a wholesale tax because it has the best chance of being adopted in our current political climate. In fact, several Republican-led states, including Virginia and Pennsylvania, have eschewed new retail fuel taxes in favor of wholesale fuel taxes. This is a bipartisan approach that could actually get support in our otherwise deeply fractured Congress.

The editorial board presented a future option, vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, as if it’s something that could be implemented overnight. But anyone following this debate knows that implementing the VMT poses a number of logistical, fairness and privacy issues that will take time to sort out. After all, how do you track a driver’s mileage and record it for taxation purposes? How does a VMT impact readers of this paper, who likely drive more miles than Portland drivers? More importantly, how do you ensure privacy? For good reason, many Americans are not keen on having the government keep tabs on their every move. The VMT could work, but not tomorrow.

Our Highway Trust Fund is on the verge of collapse, and I appreciate that this paper recognized the urgency of this issue. However, The Bulletin needs to understand the myriad challenges we face solving this issue. My legislation is not perfect, but it does resolve the problem, create jobs and raise revenue in a fair and equitable manner.

— U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, a Democrat, represents Oregon’s 4th District. He lives in Springfield.