To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1100 Town and Country Commons in Chesterfield, Missouri, as the "Lance Corporal Matthew P. Pathenos Post Office Building".

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Oh, my goodness, I don't even know where to begin. I first would like to publicly thank the Reading Clerk for his patience in slogging through the reading of this terribly complicated and confusing rule. I think the mere reading of this rule says it all, demonstrating how messed up this process is.

Madam Speaker, Speaker Boehner used to be fond of criticizing bills by saying, they wouldn't pass the ``straight face'' test. Well, let me tell you, I'm having trouble keeping a straight face right now, not when I look at this incredibly partisan, slapdash set of bills before us, not when I look at the awful, convoluted process that got us here.

Madam Speaker, this process is an absolute travesty. The Republican leadership took a thousand-page bill--the most partisan transportation bill in congressional history--and made it worse. They took a bill that was written in secret and jammed through the Transportation Committee and inserted unrelated and controversial provisions like Keystone pipeline, ANWR, offshore drilling, and cuts in Federal pensions. Even worse, they changed the rules in the middle of the game because yesterday morning, after everyone had submitted their amendments to the original single bill, Speaker Boehner decided to split it into three separate measures, and he said it was in the name of transparency. Transparency? Give me a break. It was more like the Valentine's Day massacre of transparency.

You know a bill is bad when the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the Natural Resources Defense Council are all opposed to how it's structured. Talk about strange bedfellows.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Republican Congressman, called H.R. 7 ``the most partisan transportation bill that I have ever seen,'' and ``the worst transportation bill I've ever seen during 35 years of public service.''

The chairman of the Transportation Committee calls this a bipartisan product. Madam Speaker, making Democratic amendments in order in and of itself and then defeating them doesn't make a bill bipartisan. Transportation bills, by their nature, have always been truly bipartisan, written together by the majority and minority. Republicans and Democrats in the past have not only worked in good faith on this bill, but they have put their differences aside and did their jobs. I should know. I served on the Transportation Committee during a Republican-controlled House in my first term, and I served as a conferee to the 1998 reauthorization bill.

Yet H.R. 7 abandons years of good-faith efforts by members of both parties to thoughtfully and responsibly craft a bipartisan transportation bill that reflects the priorities and vital importance of infrastructure investments across this country. H.R. 7 slashes investments in Federal highways by $15.8 billion from current levels over the bill's duration. It does so at a time when our roads and bridges are crumbling before our eyes. This bill ignores that harsh reality. It guts transit funding by de-linking dedicated Federal funding from the highway trust fund and lumping it in with a smorgasbord of other transportation accounts that will be forced to compete for annual appropriations.

What's most egregious and irresponsible about this bill--worse than the hyperpartisanship, worse than the atrocious process--is that this bill will result in 550,000 job losses. We should be focused, Madam Speaker, on creating good jobs in manufacturing and construction--two sectors hardest hit with job losses--not kicking them while they're already down.

And like so many other bills, Republicans couldn't let an opportunity pass to help their friends at Big Oil. Oil companies are making more money, hand over fist, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in record profits every year. Now we're seeing gas prices rise again. Yet Republicans continue to provide $40 billion worth of taxpayer-funded subsidies to companies that don't need them and don't deserve them.

Last night in the Rules Committee, I tried to end taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil. But instead of asking ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Shell, and other Big Oil companies to pay their fair share while prices at the pump rise, the Republicans doubled down for their corporate friends and blocked my amendment. I offered it three different ways last night, and all three ways were rejected, not even given the courtesy of consideration on this House floor. I will offer it again today, if the Rules Committee meets, but I have no doubt the other side will continue what they usually do: stand with Big Oil and continue to block my amendment.

Allowing more oil and gas drilling off our coasts and opening up the treasured Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling will do nothing to lower gas prices in the short term, let alone pay for this bill. At best, it will be years before any money would come from the new drilling areas.

And let's not forget the Keystone provision that's jammed in here that would automatically deem--I used the word ``deem''--the environmentally harmful pipeline approved.

Oh, and then there's the provision to force Federal employees--who are currently under a 2-year pay freeze--to nearly triple their contributions to their Federal retirement accounts. The Republican leadership has, once again, found a way to take a swipe at Federal employees, even in a surface transportation bill.

This part is really confusing. The Republicans are using this attack on Federal employees to pay for the highway bill, but they are also, apparently--according to press reports--using the same revenue to pay for the payroll tax extension. Perhaps my friend from Florida--and I'm happy to yield to him--could explain to us how they expect to use the same pot of money to pay for two separate things.

Well, maybe we'll get an answer later on in the debate.

Madam Speaker, Democrats want a fully funded, commonsense transportation bill that puts people back to work. We want a bill that makes our roads and bridges safer, not more dangerous. We want a bill that is good for America. This is not that bill. This bill before us is nothing but red meat political propaganda at its worst. It simply makes no sense. It will not become law. We should scrap this bill and start over and do it the right way. That's the way we've always done it. We should do it in a bipartisan way, come together, and help to get a really good transportation bill that will put people back to work.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I don't know what the gentleman is talking about. All I do know is this bill underfunds our highway and transportation system. It guts mass transit. It's not good for any State in this country. We deserve a better bill.

Also what I have learned is all of these new Members who came to Washington and say they want a more open process are giving us one of the most convoluted processes I think I have ever witnessed on this floor.

At this time, it is my privilege to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, let me yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, let me just make a couple of points to remind my colleagues of a few things. One is, this bill breaks the tradition of bipartisan action to rebuild our economy, to create jobs, and strengthen our economy. This bill, the Republican bill, kills 550,000 American jobs. It kills them. It cuts highway investments in 45 States and bankrupts the highway trust fund by $78 billion.

I would like to include for the Record a statement by the ranking member, Mr. Rahall, talking about CBO's estimate, prediction that this would bankrupt the highway trust fund.

News From the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Rep. Nick J. Rahall, II--Ranking Member

For Immediate Release: February 13, 2012.

Breaking News--CBO: Republican Surface Transportation Proposal Bankrupts Highway Trust Fund--Republican Leadership's Bill Falls $78

Billion Short Over Ten-Year Period

Washington, DC.--According to a new analysis released this

afternoon by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office

(CBO), the Republican Leadership's surface transportation

bill that the House is expected to act on later this week

would bankrupt the Highway Trust Fund by 2016 and create a

$78 billion funding shortfall over a ten-year period.

``The Republican Leadership's partisan signature `jobs'

bill is not sustainable, and would lead America's

transportation programs down a reckless path toward

bankruptcy,'' said U.S. Representative Nick J. Rahall (D WV),

top Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee. ``There is no doubt we need to pass a long-term

bill that creates certainty, but the only thing this bill

does is make certain the Highway Trust Fund will go belly up

even before the end of the bill.''

New projections released today by CBO show the balance of

the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund will go broke

by fiscal year 2016 under the Republican Leadership's

controversial plan. Over a ten-year period, the bill would

create a $78 billion funding shortfall in the Highway Trust

Fund, adding greater uncertainty to the future integrity of

surface transportation programs.

``Despite attempts by Republican Leadership to cobble

together a hodgepodge of funding that included giveaways to

Big Oil, cutting pensions for middle-class American workers,

and a bailout from the General Fund, the bill is going to

create a huge funding shortfall that will jeopardize the

ability of States and local communities to move forward with

construction projects down the

road,'' said Rahall. ``Instead of working with Democrats in a

bipartisan fashion to create jobs, Republicans are advancing

a partisan proposal that will destroy 550,000 American jobs

while putting the future of transportation programs in

doubt.''

CBO's analysis of H.R. 7, which is also available on the

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Democrats'

Website at: http://go.usa.gov/QET.

I also want to point out to my colleagues both from Utah and Florida, under this bill, Utah would lose $159 million over 5 years in highway funding according to the Federal Highway Administration. That, according to economists, is 5,531 jobs. In Florida, there would be a cut of $880 million over 5 years compared to current law; and according to economists, that would destroy 30,637 jobs. Now granted, this thing is over 1,000 pages, so I could forgive my colleagues for not reading the fine print on the bill; but if they read the fine print and they were advocating these kinds of reductions for their States, let me just say I'm glad they're not my Congressmen.

At this point, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Madam Speaker, I'm happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida, or anybody, who can explain to me what's happening. I just got an email from the Rules Committee saying that the meeting on the transportation bill that was scheduled for 2 o'clock today to deal with hundreds of amendments that Members have offered has now been postponed subject to the call of the Chair. I'm wondering whether my friend from Florida or Utah or somebody could tell me whether they have any idea why the meeting was canceled and when it's going to be rescheduled.

I'm happy to yield to the gentleman.

I just say to the gentleman, from my understanding, there's already been a cutoff for amendments, that people can't file new amendments as we speak. Or is the gentleman telling me something different?

We've passed the amendment deadline----

Well, I appreciate that.

Let me ask the gentleman this: yesterday, we were told--well, I'm reading right now news reports that one of the problems is that one of your offsets to the payroll tax cut, which is going after Federal workers' pensions, is the same offset that you have in the highway bill.

Is that the reason why this is being postponed, because the Republican leadership can't quite figure out how they're paying for any of this stuff?

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to insert in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy making it very clear that this bill would be vetoed.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 7--American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012

(Rep. Mica, R Florida, and Rep. Duncan, R Tennessee, Feb. 14, 2012)

The Administration strongly opposes the Rules Committee

Print of H.R. 7, which includes H.R. 3408, the Protecting

Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental,

Energy, and Resource Security (PIONEERS Act) and H.R. 3813,

the Securing Annuities for Federal Employees Act of 2012.

H.R. 7 does not reflect the historically bipartisan nature of

the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The

Administration has serious concerns with provisions in the

bill that would make America's roads, rails, and transit

systems less safe, reduce the transportation options

available to America's traveling public, short circuit local

decision-making, and turn back the clock on environmental and

labor protections.

This bill would reduce safety throughout the Nation's

transportation system by failing to make necessary

investments in roads and bridges, limiting funding to State

and local governments for highway safety, and repealing

requirements that help ensure the safe handling of hazardous

materials by railroads. The bill also fails to adequately

improve transit safety in accordance with recommendations of

the National Transportation Safety Board and legislation

submitted by the Administration in December 2009.

H.R. 7 eliminates programs that ensure the Nation's

metropolitan areas have sufficient resources to provide

multiple transportation options to help reduce congestion.

H.R. 7 also eliminates a thirty-year legacy of dedicated

transit funding from the Highway Trust Fund. The bill

allocates Federal funding for transit in a manner that

undermines local decision making regarding the operation of

local transit systems. This bill also reduces authorized

funding levels for Amtrak and loosens the requirements on

loan programs, putting taxpayer dollars at risk. In addition,

the bill inappropriately targets funding towards systems that

carry only a small number of the Nation's bus passengers.

Finally, while the Administration appreciates that the bill

does not contain earmarks, H.R. 7 eliminates funding for a

number of discretionary grant programs, missing an

opportunity to promote competition and innovation.

H.R. 7 would also significantly weaken environmental

protections for transportation projects and undermine civic

engagement in the decision-making process. The bill includes

arbitrary timelines that deem an environmental and

substantive review satisfactory regardless of a project's

complexity and impact. The bill also limits judicial recourse

of parties affected by transportation projects in a manner

that undermines well-established judicial principles.

The Administration is committed to promoting safe and

responsible domestic oil and gas production as part of a

broad energy strategy that will protect consumers and reduce

the Nation's dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, the

bill includes pay-fors that open up pristine natural habitats

not suitable for resource extraction and undermine prudent

development of the Nation's oil and natural gas resources by

opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to industrial

development, mandating lease sales in new offshore areas with

no Secretarial discretion for determining which areas are

appropriate and safe for such exploration and development,

and preempting a Bureau of Land Management environmental

impact statement on oil shale extraction. Further, this bill

seeks to circumvent a longstanding process for determining

whether cross-border pipelines are in the national interest

by mandating the permitting of the Keystone XL pipeline

project despite the fact that the pipeline route has yet to

be identified and there is no complete assessment of its

potential impacts, including impacts on health and safety,

the economy, foreign policy, energy security, and the

environment.

The Administration is committed to working on a bipartisan

basis on a surface transportation reauthorization bill that

provides the necessary funding to modernize the Nation's

surface transportation infrastructure,

increase transportation options, maintain and create good

paying jobs, and ensure lasting economic competitiveness.

Because this bill jeopardizes safety, weakens environmental

and labor protections, and fails to make the investments

needed to strengthen the Nation's roads, bridges, rail, and

transit systems, the President's senior advisors would

recommend that he veto this legislation.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

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

This gets more and more interesting. I share the gentleman from Ohio's concern, especially in light of the fact that the Rules Committee canceled their meeting today at 2 o'clock that was scheduled to go over all these amendments.

We have no idea what's going on. My guess is the leadership on their side has no idea what's going on. This process is so convoluted and it lacks transparency. I, quite frankly, think my colleagues should be ashamed of bringing this kind of a bill under this kind of process to the floor.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire from the gentleman how many more speakers he has left, because we have a lot. We ran out of time, so I'm the last speaker.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Madam Speaker, this bill is awful, this process is awful, and I think it's beyond salvageable. I just want to talk about one thing in closing.

Madam Speaker, oil companies get taxpayer subsidies for oil injection, extraction, drilling, manufacturing, pricing, and inventory floors. They get taxpayer subsidies, while making tens of billions of dollars in record profits, and taxpayers continue to get fleeced with rising gas prices.

At the end of this debate, I will try to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to eliminate one of these subsidies for the Big Five oil companies. The Big Five oil companies do not need, they do not deserve this subsidy, and the American people don't deserve these rising gas prices.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the previous question.

Madam Speaker, this is a reasonable amendment. The American people are tired of getting gouged at the pump by these big oil companies that are making record profits and, at the same time, we continue with taxpayer subsidies to give them these handouts. Enough is enough.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 547 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the efforts made to address our aging national infrastructure and chronic unemployment.

House Resolution 547 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3408, the Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security, PIONEERS, Act; a structured rule for H.R. 3813, the Securing Annuities for Federal Employees, SAFE, Act; and general debate for H.R. 7, the American Energy and Infrastructure Act.

This rule makes 20 amendments in order for the PIONEERS Act. Of these, 13 are Democrat amendments; three are Republican; and then there are three bipartisan amendments. This rule also makes three amendments in order for the SAFE Act. However, over 80 percent of the amendments submitted to the Rules Committee are dealing with H.R. 7, so the bulk of the amendment debate will take place later this week. Finally, this rule sets the stage for robust debate on H.R. 7, the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, the long-term surface transportation reauthorization.

In order to gather innovative ideas and input into the reauthorization proposal, in addition to the regular subcommittee and full committee hearings held here in Washington, Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Mica and the committee conducted several bipartisan and, in some cases, even bicameral hearings at public forums around the country. In total, 14 field hearings were held in locations like Los Angeles and Chicago to Millington, Tennessee, and Maitland, Florida.

The previous transportation authorization, SAFETEA LU, was enacted in 2005, and it expired on September 30, 2009. Since that time, surface transportation programs and activities have operated under a series of short-term extensions. The most recent of these extensions expires on March 31, 2012. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee put together a long-term reauthorization of highway, transit and highway safety programs that will provide much-needed certainty and stability to those charged with rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure and all who depend on it for their safe travel.

H.R. 7 authorizes approximately $260 billion over 5 years for highway, transit, rail, safety, and other programs, which is consistent with current funding levels. It provides 5 years of stability for States to undertake major infrastructure projects and to provide lasting employment. It also allows States to spend their highway money on actual highway projects. By removing Federal requirements that currently force States to spend highway money on nonhighway activities, the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act ensures that our Nation's highways and bridges are repaired and properly maintained and that Federal dollars are spent on the most crucial infrastructure needs.

As opposed to past transportation efforts, this bill stops the annual raid on the general fund to bail out the highway trust fund, and is paid for by CBO-scored savings and revenues.

Significant savings are generated by the SAFE Act, which increases Federal employee pension contributions to 2.3 percent. It also increases pension contributions by Members of Congress to 2.8 percent. Revenues are also generated by the PIONEERS Act, which not only removes Federal barriers that block the production of our own U.S. energy resources, but also creates over 1 million new energy jobs.

Finally, unlike past transportation bills, including those overseen by both Republicans and Democrats, H.R. 7 contains no earmarks. To put that in perspective, the previous transportation law contained over 6,300 earmarks. The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act also significantly reforms transportation policy in this country.

As families across the Nation tighten their own belts during these difficult economic times, they are reexamining their budgets to ensure no penny is wasted on unnecessary or duplicative expenses. Because your pennies are placed into the highway trust fund every time you fill up your car due to the Federal gas tax, it is in that same and necessary spirit that the American Clean Energy and Security Act reexamines the dozens of programs paid for by the highway trust fund to root out any duplication, waste, or inefficiency.

Currently, there are over 100 Federal surface transportation programs. Many were added over the last 50 years since the Interstate Highway System was created in 1956 in order to expand the scope of the original programmatic goals of our transportation system. The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act reforms surface transportation programs by consolidating or eliminating approximately 70 programs that are duplicative or do not serve a Federal purpose.

By eliminating or consolidating these cookie-cutter programs that the Federal Government is certainly known for, stamping out a program that supposedly fits Florida and Montana and Maine and every other State equally and including the cities and counties within those communities, which is almost impossible to have one plan fits all, this eliminates many of those programs. It gives them the flexibility to create programs on their own, similar to what the President just did by exempting many States from No Child Left Behind. Why? Because the States did a better job than the cookie-cutter approach done by that particular program.

By eliminating or consolidating these cookie-cutter programs, the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act helps to ensure that taxpayer dollars go to high-priority projects that have a direct connection to our economy. By eliminating requirements for States to spend highway funds on nonhighway activities, H.R. 7 permits States to fund those activities which they choose, but it allows States to also fund their most crucial infrastructure needs first. The bill also strengthens safety programs and gives States more flexibility to develop innovative safety initiatives that save lives.

In short, the bill seeks to return the focus of our highway funds to interstate commerce and safe travel, and it allows States to choose their own courses of action.

For those projects that are crucial for the safe and efficient movement of goods and people around our Nation, this legislation streamlines their delivery process or construction time by cutting the average highway construction completion time in half, from 14 years to 7 years.

The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act cuts the bureaucratic red tape by allowing Federal agencies to review transportation projects concurrently, delegates project approval authority to the States, and establishes hard deadlines for Federal agencies to make decisions on permits and project approvals. The bureaucracy inherent in the approval and delivery process has proven to be the real hurdle, delaying long overdue improvements to highways, bridges, and other projects. H.R. 7 also expands the list of activities that qualify for categorical exclusions, an approval process that is faster and simpler than the standard process.

While cutting the project review process time in half, we are also ensuring environmental protections, such as those under the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, remain in place while making infrastructure improvements in a much more effective manner.

The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act also reforms financing programs to increase private sector involvement in building infrastructure. For example, it funds the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, the TIFIA program, for low-cost interest loans at $1 billion per year. It also incentivizes States to build upon the existing State Infrastructure Bank program by allowing States to seek out revenue-generating infrastructure projects that lack the capital to move from planning to pavement.

As these pressing State and local infrastructure needs are met, taxpayer exposure for future projects will lessen

as revenues generated by the State Infrastructure Bank-funded projects will be recycled back into the infrastructure bank for future projects. The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act provides certainty to communities that infrastructure will be rebuilt, and it provides stability to those whose jobs depend on our commitment to rebuilding it.

Given the current economy, it seeks to safeguard valuable taxpayer dollars by cutting Washington red tape and by leveraging private sector dollars. It frees up States and local governments to make decisions that are in the best interests of their communities that they serve. It does all of this without a single earmark or a single tax increase, and it's all paid for.

Once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and of the efforts made by the relevant committees to address the Nation's infrastructure and chronic unemployment. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

In hearing what I heard in the Rules Committee last night and here on the floor this morning, it reminds me that people who have been here a long time love cookie cutters, and so many of the people that are opposed to this bill are opposed to it because they like cookie cutters. They like to say that this program works here and there and everywhere, as opposed to giving flexibility to the States.

Cookie cutters are used in education funding. They are used in Medicaid funding. They are used in this particular funding for transportation. And they're used to limit the flexibility of States who really know what their program is. It's far better for the District Five MPO in central Florida to put together a program, build it from the ground up, determine what their needs are and what modes of transportation they would like to have, build that program, send it up to the State, the legislature passes it, and it becomes law.

But no. Right now, there are so many different little programs that you have to put money into that you cannot devise your own program. You have to live within the constraints of a Federal Government that believes in cookie cutters. And it's sad.

So when you start talking about people who have been around for 35 years and they've never seen a program like this--no, because they love cookie cutters. They love it the way it is because it promotes the Federal Government making decisions for the States and local communities, as opposed to the local communities being able to develop their own programs.

So let me tell you what they did to Florida. In Florida, at one point in time, back in the times that we're talking about, we got 69 percent of our money back while States in other areas of the country, including the northeast, got maybe two times that amount of money. So the money and the funding and the flexibility were all nonexistent. Why?

If I were on the take, I would have liked to have kept it the way it was, but when we begin flattening it out and giving every State a chance and returning more moneys back to the State and with that return also allowing them to make their own choices on how they would fund their transportation projects and what kind of needs they have, and being able to, with flexibility from the Federal Government, provide for those needs for local communities, there are a lot of people who say, I don't want to do it that way. Why? I love cookie cutters.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Speaker, I just want to remind the Members that this bill, H.R. 7, will also be allowed to be amended. It will require another rule. There's no previous question in here; we're not moving towards that. We're going to have the opportunity to amend that bill at a later date. So I did say that in my opening remarks. I just want to remind the Members.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And the answer to that question is that this--different from the last Congress--this Congress allows amendments to bills, lots of them. There have been a huge amount of amendments filed to this H.R. 7, and it's going to take awhile to go through them to make sure they're germane and so forth. The meeting is coming. Don't worry about that. It's just not going to happen by 2 o'clock.

Yes.

I'm not talking about future amendments; I'm talking about the ones already filed. There are many, many amendments. In reviewing those, there's a process, and we're going to do that.

Not to my knowledge, no.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would tell you this, I'm only here as the manager of this rule. No other position do I espouse or claim. However, I can tell you over my dead body the Rules Committee will not go forward unless we have reviewed those amendments and come back with a second edition that would allow for all of the things that you said in that particular statement out of that page.

Madam Speaker, I would only remind the Members that there is nothing that leaves this Chamber without an up-or-down vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.

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

Improvements to our infrastructure are waiting. Stable construction jobs are waiting. Unemployment lingers above 8 percent nationally and near 10 percent in central Florida.

A long-term reauthorization is necessary, not just another short-term extension like we have become so used to in this body. It streamlines and consolidates Federal transportation programs, cuts red tape and Washington bureaucracy, increases funding flexibility to the States and local government, better leverages existing infrastructure resources, and encourages more private sector participation in building our Nation's decaying infrastructure. It provides 5 years of certainty and stability with flat funding that is paid for without raising taxes.

The American Energy and Infrastructure Act is long overdue. We can't delay anymore. It's time to stop putting off until tomorrow what we should have done yesterday.

This bill eliminates the typical cookie-cutter approach that Washington has used over and over again to fund all kinds of programs, including transportation. This is a great policy that consolidates many programs, that allows States the flexibility to build their own programs. It allows local communities and NPOs to design a program of transportation that fits their needs.

It can only be done when we consolidate these programs and make the reforms found in this bill. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed watching ``Moneyball.'' I enjoyed reading the book as well. In the book, they talk about fielding averages, players who don't make many mistakes. And in the book, Billy Beane said the talent for avoiding failure is not a great trait. In fact, the easiest way that someone can avoid making a mistake is just being too slow to get to the ball.

With all due respect, this administration and my good friends on the other side are simply too slow to get to the ball. The background or the basis of their arguments against this particular rule for this particular bill is they wish to fund transportation programs the old- fashioned way, which means we spend money we don't have. What we're trying to do with this particular bill is go outside of the box and find a way to actually pay for infrastructure improvements, a way to pay for our transportation needs, and to do it with energy development, like we all have a problem with escalating prices of gas at the pump.

For the most vulnerable of our society, we have a problem with them paying for heating oil. Economic development, business development demands a cheap source of energy, if it's going to happen; and we need to find a way to fund our infrastructure needs, and we are wrapping them all together by paying for it with economic energy development. Who can possibly be opposed to that?

Even the President of the United States, in one of his arguments for having a payroll tax increase, said the reason we need to do it is because we are paying too much money at the pump for gasoline, which I think is justifiable in his case. When President Obama came into office, the average cost of gasoline was $1.79. Today, the average cost for a gallon of gasoline, not inflated prices, just same dollars, is $3.28. That's an 83 percent increase in the cost at the pump since President Obama has been in office.

Now, we asked in the Rules Committee the other day, if we went back to the old-fashioned way of paying for transportation and just paid for it out of gas taxes, how much would we have to raise to fund this particular program? And the guesstimate at that time was around 20 cents a gallon--20 cents a gallon. Even if you had a small car, that's still two to three bucks a time every time you went to fill up. At that rate, nobody in the car can afford a Big Gulp. Basically, what we're trying to do on the Republican side is allow people to drive with good drinks on good roads. Our friends on the other side apparently want us to walk; or if we have good roads, you have to pay significantly more for it. That simply is wrong.

We have problems with heating oil in this country. The other side's approach to it is simply freeze in the dark. There is a better way of doing it; and this bill, these bills, try to accomplish that.

The other day we heard in the Rules Committee that there is no oil in ANWR. That comes as a great surprise to people who live in Alaska, which is maybe one of the reasons why the State Legislature of Alaska has asked us to please allow them to have access to their resources. The Native Americans who live near ANWR have asked us and begged us to please allow them to have job production by allowing them to be able to get to the resources of their area. And, indeed, if we had not usurped the control of the lands of those people, this would have happened well before that.

Even President Carter has suggested that this particular area in ANWR is where we should be developing our oil and gas resources, and that's specifically why it was put there. The fact that we haven't done it is nothing more than a dissatisfaction and a shame on us as the U.S. Congress.

I heard the other day that there is no plan for oil shale development. We have no technology to do it, even though Estonia has been doing it for over 100 years in a way that has minimal amount of water that's used. Last year, they produced 1.3 million barrels, meeting the European Union environmental standards.

My friends over in Germany who are trying to get away from nuclear are looking to Estonia and using their oil shale to supplement what they need. And we don't have the technology to go forward with that?

We are looking in the western States as a Saudi Arabia of oil shale. We have more energy potential in those three States than there is in Saudi Arabia, and all we are asking to do is be allowed to deal with it. In the 2000s, the professionals on the ground, they did the study. They charted the land. They held the town meetings, and they came up with a plan that this administration threw out the window, arbitrarily making a political deal to stop that. What we're asking is to go back to that as our starting foundation. What the professionals on the ground did, use that as our basis to start moving forward in this particular area.

I heard that the CBO said there's no money to be gained out of it, there's no energy from that.

What the CBO actually said is, of course, there is, but by scoring it--you're not going to score in the future--it's zero because you already know what's going to happen in the future. It is there, it is possible, and we can do it.

We want alternative energy. We certainly want more solar power, as long as you're not bailing out failed programs. We want more wind power, especially off the coast of Massachusetts. We just want to have every element--every element--of our energy portfolio developed, including what we have here in the United States. These bills do just that.

Let me figure out one last reason to do it. It's for kids. I live in a State where 70 percent of the land is owned by the Federal Government. That means, quite simply, when we try to fund our education system, we cannot charge property tax on our land. When you stop, by arbitrary decisions of the Department of Energy, developing resources, we don't get income tax from high-paying jobs, we don't get severance tax, and we don't get royalty payments.

That means the 12 western States that have all the BLM lands grew their education funding over the last 3 years at a 35 percent rate. That's not bad. But every State east that has no BLM land that doesn't have these kinds of restrictions grew their education funding at 68 percent, almost two to one. That's the difference. That's the reality.

What we are doing when we stop energy development, it's hurting kids in the West--my kids. Their education opportunities are retarded simply because we do not allow the development of resources that are there, and that should be done.

Look, we're asking you simply to allow us to develop these lands and, in so doing, make it possible to have cheaper gas at the pump, make it possible to heat our homes cheaply, make it possible for energy development that goes on energy, cheap energy, and build infrastructure with it at the same time to develop our potential.

All I want you to do, Madam Speaker, is to follow the words that are printed above you on that wall where it simply says: ``Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, and see whether in our day and generation, we may not perform something worthy to be remembered.''

It is time for us to do something worthy to be remembered by developing our resources, using it to pay for infrastructure, and for Heaven's sake, for once, Congress doesn't need to be too slow to get to the ball.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.

We stand here today considering a rule that is a blatant manipulation of the legislative process, which we have been pretty proud of, frankly, since the beginning of time here. Process is very important in the legislative business; and while it may seem like cookie cutter, we all still revere Thomas Jefferson and his manual. That's just the way we are, I guess.

But breaking with longstanding, bipartisan tradition for the consideration of surface transportation bills, today's rule throws all notions of bipartisanship and transparency out of the window. As you've heard, it is the first transportation bill since Eisenhower was President that was not bipartisan, and it moves toward a transportation bill that has been widely condemned on both sides of the aisle and by almost everybody who knows about it in the United States.

Now, as you can see on this poster beside me, the Grand Old Pretzel's rating system tracks the legislative contortions that are being done by the Republican leadership as they pursue a hyperpartisan agenda. We launched this system to answer the calls of the American people: What in the world is going on there? No matter which party is in power, the American people demand a fair shot, not a rigged game.

The legislative acrobatics being done by the majority are really quite remarkable. I don't know anybody else on Earth who could have even thought of it. Their stunt work began late last week, as Mr. McGovern pointed out, when we were fully expecting to come in on Monday and deal with a thousand-page transportation infrastructure bill, legislation that we knew already, because we'd heard so many complaints about it, that was cobbled together into Frankenstein's monster. It is made up of completely, believe me, completely unrelated and most times unvetted provisions that addressed almost every issue under the sun.

The Secretary of Transportation, as we all know who is our good friend, deplores this bill. He would like to see this bill fail.

However, before the Rules Committee convened last night, and that's not the first time this year, we were given last-minute notice that Frankenstein's monster was going to be disassembled and broken into three separate bills. This last-minute change would allow the majority to limit the number of germane amendments--300 were filed--and rule out of order commonsense attempts by Democrats to make some special interests, such as Big Oil--and Mr. McGovern has fought this for years--pay their fair share instead of receiving billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.

After forcing through these three bills, the majority plans to direct the Clerk of the House to stitch it back together. So the whole purpose of it is to try a sleight of hand. What shell game are we playing here? That's what we're up to, I'm afraid. So that gives the Senate a stitched-together bill which we had cut into three. I don't want anybody to miss this point. And they can take it or leave it. Or, I hope, have a better bill than this. That's what we're hoping for.

For inventing a way to pass as many Republican amendments as possible, and block as many Democrat amendments as possible, while still sewing this monster back again, I want to award the majority four Grand Old Pretzels, the coveted Quadruple Contortion.

The majority has truly achieved the remarkable. Unfortunately, their acrobatic achievements come at great cost to the House; and by pursuing a partisan agenda over transparency and bipartisanship, the majority moves forward alone, against the wishes of their colleagues and the American people.

And I certainly should mention that the President has said this bill will be vetoed by him. He again calls for us to work in a bipartisan manner, not to be throwing more people out of work but to create jobs with an infrastructure bill which is time honored and may be as cookie cutter as it gets but, by George, it works.

I thank the gentleman.

So last year the oil industry made $137 billion in the United States. This year, of course, heading to $5 a gallon gasoline. They're tipping American drivers upside-down so fast that they'll probably make $200 billion.

They've got to raise about another $40 billion to pay for this transportation bill. They could take away the $4 billion in tax breaks each year over 10 years, $40 billion that they give to ExxonMobil. They really don't need that money. The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay twice, once at the pump and then once as taxpayers. So they could have solved all of this just by taking away the oil tax breaks.

But here's what they do: They say, one, we can drill for shale in Colorado and Wyoming. And we know that Shell Oil and the Department of Interior say that there is no commercially available technology. Two, they can drill in the Arctic refuge, but we know that there are no votes in the Senate to make it possible for that to happen. And three, their next proposal is to drill off of the beaches of California and Florida for oil--off the beaches. The Republicans are lining up themselves in these States to say I want to make the amendment to make sure we don't do that.

So, none of this is going to happen in terms of the revenues that they say they're going to generate. These are phantom revenues from phantom drilling that's never going to happen.

Moreover, they want to export the natural gas out of our country. Well, let me tell you what T. Boone Pickens says about this. This is what T. Boone Pickens says about exporting U.S. natural gas:

If we do it, we're truly going to go down as America's

dumbest generation.

It's bad public policy to export natural gas. Why is that? Because natural gas in the United States is six times cheaper than in Asia, it's three times cheaper than in Europe. That's why our agriculture is doing so well, that's why manufacturing is coming back. The cost of a unit of production of any product in terms of the energy which is needed has plummeted. That's our advantage in coming out of the recession.

Finally, on the Keystone pipeline, why don't we keep the oil here in the United States? The Canadians want to take the oil, build a pipeline through the United States over our environmentally sensitive areas, bring it to Port Arthur, Texas, an export zone, and then send the oil to Asia and Latin America. Where's the American part of this? What do we get out of the Keystone pipeline? Nothing.

So I will have an amendment that says, if we build that pipeline--if we let the Canadians--that we keep the oil here in the United States because the oil should stay in the United States, the natural gas should stay in the United States. We shouldn't be pretending that we're going to be raising the revenues from these other places where they are just phantom revenues from phantom drilling, which is never going to happen.