Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I asked for this time only because the chairman referred to opening these hearings in my hometown of Beckley, West Virginia, which he did, and I appreciate that very much and the many other hearings he held across the country. Yet the question is, you have to learn from these hearings, and you have to incorporate that which you learn from these hearings into the bill that you end up finally writing, and I'm not sure that was done from what the gentleman heard from my home State.

In addition, which the gentleman from Massachusetts referred to, as to the bipartisanship of the other body, we all know in this town and across the country how hard it is to get that other body to agree on anything. Even if it were a resolution saying, ``I love Mother,'' it's hard to get 60 votes over there for anything. Yet they got 72 votes for a bipartisan transportation bill. They got half of the Republican Members of that other body to support a bipartisan transportation bill. We have tried, as the gentleman from Massachusetts knows, to bring that up in the Rules Committee, to make it in order.

I and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) have tried and tried and tried to bring that up and on the floor of the House. Yet we get turned down at every turn in the road. At every corner in the road, we get turned down in our efforts to bring up the bipartisan Senate transportation bill. It is not very often that you will find such a measure produced by that other body. Yet they've done it this time, and we cannot get it brought up to the floor of this body.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that the extension the majority is bringing to the floor this morning is too long, and it will do nothing but continue the uncertainty that States and businesses-- small businesses, I might add--have faced since the expiration in the last long-term bill in August '09, 2\1/2\ years and eight extensions ago.

Uncertainty is what we are continuing by the passage of this extension today, uncertainty among the small business community in this country. They need the certainty with which to plan contracts.

This happens to be the springtime of the year, the time when contracts are let and when jobs are planned and when people need to know if they're going to be working or not--not 90 days from now. This is the contracting season with the work usually done during the summer and then concluded by the fall, and the bottom lines are added up.

We have already heard stories of small businesses that have had to cut back from 80 percent of their budget to 40 percent or less because they don't know what the Congress is going to do in terms of a long- term transportation bill. To elaborate on what my colleague from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) had said, the impacts on our State DOTs of endless extensions and the inability to plan for current and future transportation needs are very real, very real. And here are just a few of the examples:

North Carolina has delayed projects totaling $1.2 billion, affecting 41,000 jobs;

Nevada and Maryland each report 4,000 jobs are at risk due to projects being delayed;

Michigan has only let 35 percent of its projects, or $180 million below its normal activity level, and it's delayed several large construction projects;

Rhode Island has delayed $80 million worth of projects and planning for needed safety and structural improvements of a major interchange;

My home State of West Virginia reports that an extension would result in a 10 percent cut in programs, affecting over 1,200 jobs, and the State of West Virginia may be forced to shut projects down or delay payments to contractors to manage cash flow;

New Hampshire, Mr. Speaker, will not award contracts on $60 million in projects that were recently bid, affecting 1,800 job years, and will delay $115 million in bond issuance for the construction of two exits; and

Illinois estimates that the uncertainty posed by stopgap funding measures means that 4,500 jobs could be lost and that ongoing uncertainty will increase contractor risk and cause higher bids for construction projects.

Without congressional action on the Senate bill, many States in the Northeast and Midwest stand to lose an entire construction season. That would be a devastating blow to many States as they slowly recover from the worst construction downturn since the Great Depression.

While millions of construction jobs and much-needed infrastructure projects hang in the balance, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent weeks driving in circles. They have at least been consistent and embraced this theme of uncertainty in their own internal deliberations.

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

Mr. Speaker, the pending legislation before this body today, at the eleventh hour, as a result of a tortuous process--excuse me, it's not been a process at all, but rather a series of stalled starts, retreats, and the failure by the Republican leadership to seize upon a reasonable solution to reauthorizing our Nation's transportation surface programs.

At first, the Speaker stated this was a jobs bill. Almost as soon as the words were out of his mouth, he countered himself by saying that investing in America's infrastructure has nothing to do with jobs at all. Nothing to do with jobs at all.

What came about then was a scheme to produce a 5-year reauthorization bill coupled with that universal House Republican answer to all ills, which is to open up ANWR to drilling, drill, baby, drill, and then attempt to pay for some of the proposal on the backs of working-class Americans.

The surface transportation portion, H.R. 7, proposed to slash $15.8 billion in highway funding to the States, destroying 550,000 American family-wage jobs over the coming years. Investment in roads, highways, and bridges would retrench in all but five States.

The Republican leadership also proposed to shift public transit revenue to highways and then bail out transit with a one-time transfer of $40 billion from the general fund, while robbing middle class Americans to pay for the shuffle.

This is an idea that would make even the most hardened con artist green with envy. It is a shell game. It's a shell game, but it has no place in the hallowed Halls of Congress. It is a shell game, and it is a sham.

But it was not Democrats who took this ill-advised proposal down; it was Republicans. Over the course of 6 weeks, they caucused, they corralled, and they contorted themselves in trying to obtain 218 votes to pass H.R. 7. And they could not, which brings us to this week, when the Republican leadership decided to bring up a 90-day extension bill under suspension of the rules in the form of H.R. 4239.

But when this legislation was called up on Tuesday, it was done so as a 60-day extension. The House debated this measure. I asked for a vote, and the vote was postponed. As far as I know, that request for a vote is still pending, even as we debate a different bill now.

Then another curious thing happened. According to the publication Transportation Weekly yesterday, and I quote:

After more discussion among themselves, Republican leaders

order Mica to reintroduce the 60-day version of his extension

as a stand-alone bill, which can then be considered by the

Rules Committee.

That bill is H.R. 4276.

The Transportation Weekly article yesterday then noted, and I quote again:

After still more discussion among themselves, Republican

leaders order Mica to reintroduce the 90-day version of the

extension as a stand-alone bill, which can then be considered

by the Rules Committee as well.

Confused? Anybody confused?

That bill is now H.R. 4281, which we are currently debating. Who knows what we'll be debating the next hour.

And yet, during the course of last and this week, the Republican leadership could have scheduled the bipartisan, non-controversial, Senate-passed bill for consideration by this body. It could have been brought up any time by the Speaker, passed by this body in a bipartisan fashion, signed into law.

I make these points to illustrate the fast and loose means by which the Republican leadership has been dealing with an extremely serious matter. Instead they're spinning their wheels in pursuit of the ill- conceived H.R. 7, which slashes investments in Federal aid to highways by $15.8 billion from current levels at a time when more spending is needed to address structurally deficient bridges and maintain our highway system.

H.R. 7 reduces highway funding to all but five States.

H.R. 7 guts America's commitment to transit by a sleight-of-hand move that siphons away a portion of gas taxes which are dedicated to transit funding and instead proposes to fund

transit with general revenue funds which is offset on the backs of workers.

H.R. 7 contains a bogus pay-for by linking opening up ANWR and changes in OCS oil and gas leasing, which only produce $4.3 billion over a 10-year period.

H.R. 7 continues to send American dollars and jobs overseas through the inclusion of a ``Buy America Light'' requirement that does not fully cover transit rolling stock, Amtrak, and the Federal railroad loan program, while failing to crack down on DOT's waiver authority.

H.R. 7 places a roadblock on public participation in reviewing transportation projects by limiting and, in certain cases, outright waiving NEPA.

And H.R. 7 eliminates OSHA protections for hazmat workers and allows bad actors to continue to receive hazmat compliance exemptions.

So this body could have considered and passed the other body's bipartisan bill, which passed that body by a vote of 74 22. That's half of the Republican Members in the other body, and we know how difficult it is to get that other body to get 60 votes to cut off debate on any resolution or any bill. Even one saying ``I love Mother'' would be hard to pass in that other body. Yet, for a transportation bill, they came up with 72 votes.

That bill continues current funding levels, sustaining approximately 1.9 million jobs. The States will receive $3.8 billion more in highway construction funding than H.R. 7 over the course of 2 years.

The Senate bipartisan bill eliminates many of the gaping loopholes in current law by American requirements, loopholes that are being exploited by foreign competitors like China, who are stealing American jobs.

The Senate bipartisan bill does not contain poison pills like H.R. 7, such as provisions to strip OSHA requirements for hazmat workers and efforts to finance highway construction on the backs of middle class workers.

I would note, Mr. Speaker, that we have tried, we have tried by every means available to us on this side of the aisle, to have this Senate- passed bill brought up for consideration in the House, and not just through procedural motions. Yesterday, Representatives DeFazio, Corrine Brown, Tim Bishop, and myself submitted that measure to the Rules Committee, asking them to make it in order as an amendment to the pending measure so we could vote on it today. We were denied.

Instead, we are on the floor today with the Republican leadership proposal to kick the can down the road for another 90 days so they can try to convince their conference to support something they have not been able to do over the last 6 weeks.

The fact of the matter is we need to be investing more, not less, if we are to keep pace with China, India, and our other international competitors. Today China spends 9 percent of its GDP per year on infrastructure. India spends 5 percent. The U.S. only invests 1.9 percent.

While our competitors are moving forward, the inability of the Republican leadership to reach out across party lines to House Democrats to address this bill is leaving America stuck in a ditch and putting American businesses at a disadvantage with companies around the world.

In 2008, a blue ribbon commission established as a result of the last multiyear surface transportation bill reported that the Federal Government must invest a minimum of $62 billion a year just to maintain the Nation's roads and bridges in their present inadequate condition.

This bill comes nowhere close to that. Instead, it leads America down the opposite path. President Lyndon B. Johnson once said: ``In large measure, America's history is a history of her transportation.''

I say let us seize the moment and move forward without procedural gimmicks, without partisan brinksmanship, and do what is right for America, for the American worker, for American families, and for American values.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the distinguished ranking member on our Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the bill he is promoting, H.R. 7, means to his home State of Pennsylvania a cut of $948 million, and it destroys some 32,983 good-paying jobs. For fiscal year 2016, in the State of Pennsylvania, the level of funding will be less than that for fiscal year 2004. That's what H.R. 7 would mean to the gentleman's home State of Pennsylvania.

You would not yield to me. I will not yield to you.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes now to the gentleman from Missouri, a valued member of our committee, Mr. Carnahan.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) at this time, a valued member of our committee and the sponsor of H.R. 14, the other body's bipartisan transportation bill, which is twice as good as H.R. 7.

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes at this time to the distinguished gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the ranking member on our Economic Development and Public Buildings Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Gerry Connolly.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to yield the customary 1

minute to the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

I guess it's not very popular on his side of the aisle. He doesn't seem to have many speakers coming over. I haven't noticed many members of his committee to speak in favor of this extension today.

I am prepared to close. I would take some time from the distinguished chairman, if he'd be willing to yield me some of his time.

That's about all we're getting out of H.R. 7, too.

Madam Speaker, if the other side were serious about creating jobs, they would have worked in a bipartisan fashion in this body, as the other body did, to build a bill that could pass both bodies of the Congress and be signed into law. As the distinguished Democratic leader has just said, everybody is on board except the leadership of the House of Representatives on the Republican side.

Just as this Congress has done so many times before--and I have been in this body over three decades, involved in every transportation bill we've done over that time--every transportation bill we've done has been in a bipartisan fashion, passing this body by overwhelming margins.

Instead, today's leadership in this House has plowed full speed ahead writing a partisan proposal that is aimed at appealing to ideological spectrums of their party. Last month, Teamsters general president James Hoffa wrote in a letter:

How do eliminating OSHA protections for hazmat workers

improve this Nation's crumbling roads and bridges? How do

loopholes in ``Buy America'' protections put hundreds of

thousands of construction workers back on the job?

Last month in a letter addressed to the Speaker of this body, the general president of the Laborers International Union, Terry O'Sullivan, wrote:

The House must return to the principles of sound governance

and bipartisanship that has historically characterized

consideration of the Surface Transportation Act.

He further noted:

The offsets used to pay for this bill are also

irresponsible. Slashing the pay and retirement security of

the hardworking Federal and postal employees is neither

honest nor fair. It is an unacceptable attack on the

hardworking people who provide essential services for

veterans and Native Americans, process our mail, keep our

skies safe, our parks clean, and help protect us from

threats, both foreign and domestic.

As has already been noted, one of our key business groups in this country, the Associated General Contractors, has stated the following:

The majority of the work is supposed to go out in spring

and get done by the fall. Instead of spending 60 or 70

percent of their budgets, our small businesses are going to

cut back to 50 to 40 percent to make sure they have some cash

in the fall.

That comes from one of the major business groups in this country responsible for putting people to work and responsible for getting our economy moving again. I urge that we take up the bipartisan Senate- passed bill and reject this extension.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, where do I begin? This is one more opportunity lost, one more opportunity squandered by this Republican- controlled House.

We are just days away from the expiration of the laws that authorize our surface transportation programs, and yet here we are debating a politically charged, unnecessary, and partisan bill that just kicks the can down the road a few months.

Last month, this House began, but could not finish, consideration of the most partisan drafted--possibly the only partisan drafted--highway reauthorization bill in history. Let me repeat that. The House could not complete consideration of the Republican bill, a Republican bill that would have been considered a joke if it weren't such a serious breach of responsibility.

This is like a bad soap opera. Just when the twists and turns can't get more fantastical and crazy, someone comes up with an even zanier idea just to keep the plot lines moving along. I'm waiting for the mysterious twin brother to show up.

The plotline here is that the Republican leadership keeps manufacturing ways not to do the simple thing, the right thing, and that is to pass the Senate bill, the 2-year bill that passed the Senate 74 22, clearly and overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion.

It's refreshing and a bit strange when the Senate can put their ideological differences aside and actually pass a decent bill. It's not every day that Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator James Inhofe agree on a bill, but that's what happened with the Senate bill.

Now, I'm not going to stand here and say that the Senate bill is the bill I would have drafted. To the contrary, I want a 5-year reauthorization that is fully funded, a bill that results in real jobs and a bill that invests in important areas like public transit.

While the Senate bill lasts for only 2 years, it is a good start and it is much better than the Republican proposal we have here today. For my colleagues who have a short memory, let me recap where we were last month.

The Republican leadership took a 1,000-page bill, undoubtedly 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 the Keystone pipeline, ANWR, offshore drilling, and cuts in Federal pensions. Even worse, they changed the rules in the middle of the game. Specifically, after everyone had submitted their amendments to the original single bill, Speaker Boehner decided to split it into three separate measures, which meant that many of the amendments could not be considered in the way that they were originally drafted.

Now, of course the Republicans quickly realized that they didn't have the votes for that bill and yanked it from the floor. It must have been pretty embarrassing because it's been over a month since they gave up on that bill.

And what has the Republican leadership been doing over the last month? Negotiating with House Democrats to reach a bipartisan compromise? Talking with the Senate on ways to properly reauthorize these programs and bring jobs back to the economy? Of course not. Over the past month, the Republican leadership has been sitting around pointing fingers and complaining that they can't move the transportation bill, even though Republicans are in control of this House.

It's the end of March, and Republicans can't get their act together to get a real transportation bill passed. You call that leadership? Give me a break.

Leadership is about governing. Leadership is about doing what's right. Honestly, Mr. Speaker, there's no leadership here.

Shame on this leadership for bringing us here today. Shame on this leadership for putting the American jobs on the line just because they cannot manage their own internal politics. That's right. By refusing to pass the Senate bill today, Republicans are putting American jobs on the line.

With the economy slowly recovering and with more than 2.7 million construction and manufacturing workers still out of work, why do Republicans want to play Russian roulette with this important jobs bill?

We should not be in this position today. This is a manufactured crisis, a crisis that is a product of a lack of leadership, a crisis that is a product of a lack of bipartisan cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity to consider the Senate bill today, but the Rules Committee, mislabeled by some as the most open Rules Committee in decades, blocked that bill from consideration.

That's right. This new majority put this bill on the floor, sight unseen, and without any markup or hearing. They waived their own 3-day layover rule, and this is a closed rule. In fact, I can't even seem to find a CBO score for this bill. And this is the open process my colleagues on the Rules Committee are so proud of.

This is a completely closed rule. I offered the Senate bill as an amendment to this rule last night so that Members could have an opportunity to vote on it today, not in place of the Republican bill, but as a stand-alone amendment.

Speaker Boehner is fond of saying, let the House work its will, but apparently the Republicans on the Rules Committee do not believe in that philosophy because they blocked my amendment on a party-line vote. Why did they block my amendment? As the chairman of the Rules Committee is fond of usually saying, because they could.

Now, I will try one more time to offer the Senate amendment. Congressman Tim Bishop introduced H.R. 14, the exact same language as the Senate-passed bill. If this House defeats the previous question, Congressman Bishop will be able to offer his amendment to the Republican bill, not in place of, just alongside the Republican bill. The House, like Speaker Boehner promised, would then be able to work its will.

Now, it's clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican leadership is more concerned with political victories than with legislating. It is clear that the Republican leadership would rather score cheap political points with their right-wing base than promote and create jobs in America.

President Clinton was fond of saying, The perfect can't be the enemy of the good. There's a perfectly good bipartisan Senate bill that would pass this House overwhelmingly if the Republican leadership decided to bring it up. But no, the Republican leadership would rather play chicken with people's jobs on the line instead of actually legislating, let alone legislating in a bipartisan way.

It is clear that when the far right wing of the far right wing opposes something, the Republican leadership crumbles like cheap asphalt.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me respond to my friend.

The difference is that we have an overwhelmingly bipartisan compromise that has passed one of the Chambers here, the Senate. This is the choice we have: Do we do these short-term extensions so that cities and towns and States can't plan, or do we take this bipartisan compromise that the Senate has put together so that there's some certainty for our cities and towns and for our States?

I mean, that's the difference. What's happening here is that there is an internal fight within the Republican Party. The right wing is battling with the extreme right wing, and they can't agree with each other because you have people in the Republican Party who don't believe in the public sector.

So, as this economy is struggling to get back on its feet and we see some recovery, more and more every month, we could actually help that recovery. We could move things along. We could create more jobs if we were to act in a different way today.

But, instead, the right wing and the extreme right wing are having a fight within the Republican Party, so the Republican House leadership is paralyzed. That's not leadership. That's just irresponsible.

At this point, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

I want to thank my colleague on the Rules Committee for making, I think, a very strong case why we should reject the 90-day extension and pass a 2-year extension for this reason: because 90 days means nothing.

He diminishes the impact of 2 years. Most people I talk to would have preferred 2 years to 90 days. Here's the difference. We have a democratically controlled Senate that worked out a deal with Republicans. Barbara Boxer and Jim Inhofe came together. They are very opposite individuals when it comes to politics, but they came together.

Here, the Republicans are fighting Republicans. Democrats have been locked out of this entire process.

Let's get real here. Let's be honest with the American people. The budget that you all are going to vote for later this afternoon decimates highway and road and bridge funding, which basically destroys, I think, the basis for a strong infrastructure program in this country. You're not here trying to argue about a better bill. You're trying to figure out a way to give States less, to give cities and towns less. That would undercut a lot of the projects that are being contemplated all across this country that will not only put people back to work but make us more economically secure. That's what this is all about. It's about trying to come up with an even lousier transportation bill than the one that you brought to the House floor.

At this point, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1minute.

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

Let's get the facts straight. Let's talk about this great bipartisan process.

All we're asking for today is to have an alternative to be voted on-- one substitute. That's it. That's all we've been asking for; and we've been told, no, you can't. It's your way or the highway. That's not bipartisanship.

As for all of these great bipartisan amendments, let's everybody be clear on one thing: that not one single amendment has been considered to the transportation bill on this House floor. Not one single amendment has been allowed. You yanked the bill when, I guess, some of the extreme right wing of the extreme right wing got upset on your side for whatever reason, also because there were a lot of moderates who realized that the bill that you brought to the floor would bankrupt the highway trust fund, that it was bad policy for this country, and that it was not going to help rebuild our infrastructure.

So the only bipartisan proposal we have before us right now, which is not perfect but which is the only bipartisan product, is the Senate bill, which passed 74 22.

At this time, I would be happy to yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), I just want to point out something for my colleagues here.

One of the reasons many of us prefer the Senate bill to even the House bill that you brought to the floor and then split up and then yanked from the floor is that the Senate bill sustains approximately 1.9 million jobs on an annual basis. The House Republican bill destroys 550,000 jobs compared to the current funding level. So what you had brought to the floor and then you yanked was a job killer.

At this point, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, the ranking member of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, Mr. DeFazio.

Mr. Speaker, on that, I would yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I have the ranking member of the committee and myself.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it's my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the Transportation Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 14, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act. This is the House companion to the bipartisan Senate transportation bill that passed in the other body 74 22.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, this House of Representatives is not working for the American people. At a time when jobs should be the most important priority of this Congress, we have a leadership that talks about everything but jobs. And when it comes to jobs, nothing could be more important than passing a transportation bill.

The Republicans brought a terrible bill to the floor--so terrible, they couldn't even force their own Members to vote for it. They had to pull it. And now we're in this period of delay, delay, delay; kick the can down the road, kick the can down the road.

And what makes this situation unique, I would say to my friend from Florida, as compared to previous years, is that we actually have a bipartisan bill that has passed one of the Chambers--a bipartisan bill in the Senate that passed overwhelmingly, 74 22--authored by Barbara Boxer and Jim Inhofe, two polar opposites of the political spectrum. They could come together.

They came together and put the American people first. They put jobs first. It wasn't about ideology. It wasn't about getting it perfect for either of them. And yet here we are, still fighting over the most ridiculous things and bringing the most inconsequential piece of legislation to the House floor when we should be focused on passing bills like this.

I'm told we need to do this because we're going on another recess. God forbid we stay here and actually work on something that will be meaningful for the American people. This bill is so important to our economy that, quite frankly, it's worth us staying here a few extra days and getting this thing done. Instead, we're going to kick the can down the road for 90 days. Next week nothing will be done. We'll come back, and then what? Then what will happen?

Essentially, what we're doing here is we're telling the American people that we're not putting them first. We're not putting jobs first. For the life of me, I can't understand why this Congress, this leadership, which claims to be open, won't even give us a vote. We can't even get a vote on the Senate bill. If you want to vote against the Senate 2-year extension and vote instead for your 90-day extension, fine. But let us have an opportunity to vote on something that will mean something to our communities, that will put people back to work. Why are you denying us this vote? I have yet to hear anybody say why we can't have a vote on this. We had no amendments debated on this House floor on the transportation bill. We ought to have this debated.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so a little democracy can happen here in the House of Representatives.

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

This is really a discussion about the future of transportation in America, and there is a very basic difference.

The Republicans are being hung up because there is a substantial portion of their caucus that believes--truly believes--there is no Federal interest, that we should not have a national transportation policy and that it should be devolved to the States.

Well, that's what this looks like when you devolve to the States. Kansas Turnpike, 1956, Oklahoma said they'd build their section. They didn't. They were launching cars into Amos Switzer's cornfield for the next 8 years. This was about the failure of a 50-State transportation policy. They are being hung up by enough people on their side to hold up this bill by those who believe that this is the way the country should look in the future.

Now, we want jobs. Even if they could move their H.R. 7--which they can't because of this faction--they would cut funding by 20 percent. We've got 150,000 bridges on the Federal system, the National Highway System, that need repair or replacement. Forty percent of the pavement needs substantial redoing, not just resurfacing. There is a $70 billion backlog on our legacy transit systems--that's our 20th century system-- and there's no money in this for a 21st century system.

And this is their vision. Their vision, it's one of two visions. Cut 20 percent. The Ryan budget actually would cut transportation by 35 percent from current levels. Or the Flat Earthers who say there's no Federal interest in a national transportation system. One of those three things is going to come out from their side; a 20 percent cut, a 35 percent cut, or no program.

We have an alternative. Let's vote on the Senate bill. When you can get 22 Republican Senators to vote to extend the program for 2 years-- and we had one gentleman say, Oh, 2 years is nothing, no equipment orders. Well, guess what. I have a list here--and it's just the beginnings of a list--of seven State DOTs who have contacted the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials saying a 90-day delay will cost jobs; 40,000 jobs in North Carolina, and on down the list. Nevada, Maryland, Michigan, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and New Hampshire have all reported in about projects they're going to delay or cancel if we do another 90-day extension and we don't do the 2-year bill. The 2-year bill is enough certainty for these projects to move forward. No, it's not optimal. We need a real 5-year bill, but we don't need a 5-year bill that guts or destroys the program. But those are the alternatives you are offering us here.

Just give us one vote, just one vote. Let us vote on the Senate bill, which passed as a true bipartisan bill. This is not a bipartisan bill. The gentleman from Florida is a good friend. But look, we did not sit down and look at this bill and review it. It was presented to us.

This could or should be the most important jobs-creating bill in America, investing in our Nation's infrastructure, making our Nation more competitive in the international economy, more efficiently moving goods and people. The current system, a legacy of the 1950s, is falling apart.

The Republicans are telling us that this 90-day extension will be good for America. It will not be good for America because we have a better option before us. A bill passed by the United

States Senate, a bipartisan bill, with 22 Republican Senators, half the Republican Senators supporting that bill, which would give us more funding without creating deficit and create more jobs than their pie- in-the-sky bill, H.R. 7, which they can't even get out of their own caucus here, because their own caucus is split.

There are a number of Republicans who do not believe we should have a national transportation system. They want to devolve it back to the States, go back to the pre-1950s.

The Speaker was forced to say to his caucus:

We are not making the claim that spending taxpayer money on

transportation projects creates jobs. We don't make that

claim, and we won't make that claim. What makes this a jobs

bill is that it removes government barriers that are getting

in the way of economic growth.

That's not what all the people engaged in rebuilding the Nation's infrastructure think. They think investment equals jobs. If we do this 90-day extension, the Association of General Contractors says that States will cut back from 50 percent to 40 percent of their planned projects because of the uncertainty created by this 90-day extension. We're going to lose half of the proposed projects this construction season around America, tens of thousands of jobs, needed investment because they've got a bunch of bozos in their caucus that don't believe we should have a national transportation system. They're fighting among themselves.

Give us a vote. Let us vote on the Senate bill.

It doesn't create deficit. It does create jobs. It does give us the investment we need.

The gentleman who spoke just before me, the gentleman from Tennessee, who is a good friend, under the bill they're trying to pry out of their caucus, which the Secretary of Transportation called the worst transportation bill in history--and by the way, the Secretary is a Republican and served in this House for more than a decade. He says it's the worst bill ever in terms of policy and lack of investment. In the case of the gentleman from Tennessee, their H.R. 7, if they could get it out of caucus--and they can't--it would cost his State $444 million over 5 years. That's lost investment. That's more than 10,000 jobs lost.

We have an opportunity today to take up a 2-year bill and provide certainty not only for construction jobs and for engineering jobs, but for people who manufacture construction equipment, for people with Made in America requirements who construct transportation equipment, our buses, our light rail, our streetcars, all the things that need building and replacing just for the existing system, let alone beginning to have a vision of building out a 21st century system. Our competitor nations around the world are doing it.

They are so dyspeptic on their side, they're arguing over whether or not the Federal Government should be involved in transportation. That's nuts. We settled that debate 60 years ago when Dwight David Eisenhower said this doesn't work. We have States building turnpikes that end in farmers' fields because the adjoining State couldn't afford to build their section of the turnpike. He said we need a coordinated national transportation policy.

We have an opportunity to improve on the one we have today by passing the Senate bill that does do some streamlining, it does do things that will help us spend the money more efficiently, and it maintains current levels of spending instead of reductions, and it does not have the uncertainty of a 90-day bill that is going to cost us half of the proposed projects this construction season.

Give us that chance. Let us have that vote. What are you afraid of? Are you afraid it might pass?

I still agree with that quote. We shouldn't play politics. It has never been a partisan issue. You've made it into a partisan issue, and that quote was when you were opposing a 90-day extension and when I was saying don't play politics by opposing a 90- day extension at that point in time. But we're too far down the road. We didn't have an alternative then. We have an alternative now. Pass the Senate bill.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I just want to reiterate the point I made earlier. Outside of a minority of their caucus, I believe a majority of the United States House of Representatives believes that Federal investment--using taxpayer dollars without creating deficit--that Federal investment and rebuilding our national infrastructure, the 150,000 bridges on the National Highway System that need substantial repair or replacement--the steel that goes into those bridges is made in America. The workers are American workers. The engineers are American engineers. The $60 billion backlog in our existing transit systems, let alone giving Americans more fuel-efficient transit options, $60 billion. Buses made in America, light railcars made in America, these are manufacturing jobs, engineering jobs, high-tech jobs. These are not just construction jobs.

The construction industry, itself, is devastated with double-digit unemployment. Passing this 90-day extension, according to the Association of General Contractors, a very Republican-leaning organization--80 percent of their political contributions go to the Republicans, so they are not partisan to our side of the aisle--they say that it is going to mean the States will go to a 40 or 50 percent reduction in their projects this summer because they are not assured beyond that 90 days that they're going to get their Federal reimbursements. Many States, unlike this body and unlike the Federal Government, have constitutional balanced budget requirements, something we should have nationally. But that's a debate for another day.

The point is that this temporary extension does cost us jobs, and the bill we'll vote on later today, the Ryan budget, would actually reduce transportation investments by 56 percent from current levels, which isn't even dealing with the already deteriorated infrastructure and is not putting people back to work.

So there's this kind of a mixed message on their side. They say, Well, just do the 90 days and then we'll do H.R. 7. Well, H.R. 7 will reduce spending and cost half a million jobs.

The budget they're going to vote on later today would reduce spending by 56 percent on transportation. That is mind-boggling in the face of what confronts our Nation, the challenges around the world, and the need for jobs.

There are people on their side of the aisle that just say, The government can't create jobs. They're hung up on this semantic thing. No, the government isn't creating the jobs. The government is investing taxpayer dollars without borrowing to let out private contracts to the lowest and best bidders to build these projects with all products made in America--the strongest Made in America requirement.

So you can't tell me those things don't create jobs. Those are investments. They create jobs. Consumption and tax cuts don't create jobs. They want more tax cuts instead of investment in America. That is so wrong.

Let us vote on the bipartisan Senate bill. If 22 Republican Senators can support that bill, which would give us 2 years of stability, we ought to have a chance to vote on it in this House.

Thank you for yielding.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, let's just set the record straight. The other side says that this wasn't a bipartisan process.

First of all, the first hearing was held in the ranking Democrat member's hometown and district in West Virginia. We went from sea to shining sea, all the way to Los Angeles, in order to accommodate a bicameral, unprecedented bipartisan hearing in Los Angeles. Again, the comments that are made here do not reflect the reality. In the committee, we took 100 Democrat amendments, and we accepted about 20 of them. In addition to when we drafted the legislation, 60 percent of the recommendations of the Democrats were in the draft that came before the committee. Yet there is this stuff about it not being bipartisan.

Then the Republicans can't get it done. These are the people who cannot get it done. They controlled the House; they controlled the Senate; they controlled the White House during this entire process. They couldn't even get it to committee. They could not get the bill to committee. It passed a subcommittee.

So we have passed it. They've made bipartisanship in this committee a one-way street, and it wasn't that way before. They will close down major projects across this country if we don't pass this extension. Why are we here for this extension for 90 days? Because we offered 90 days to begin with, and they said, No, we won't do 90 days because we want to keep things stirred up. So we said, Well, what do you want? They said 60 days. Okay. In the spirit of bipartisanship, we'll go 60 days. So then they rejected that. Some of the Democrats threw each other under the bus, so to speak; and here we are at 90 days again.

So, folks, let's get the facts straight and the reality straight. Republicans want America to work and our infrastructure to be built.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4281.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 600, I call up the bill (H.R. 4281) to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, first I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, we know why we're here. We are here to pass a responsible extension so that people across America can go to work, that we can finish a long-term transportation bill, and that we can be responsible stewards of the trust which the taxpayers and the citizens of America sent us here for.

I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, March 29, 2012.

Hon. John Mica,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Mica: I am writing concerning H.R. 4281, the

``Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012,'' which is

scheduled for floor consideration this week.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has

jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Code. Title IV of this

bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by extending

the current Highway Trust Fund expenditure authority and the

associated Federal excise taxes to June 30, 2012. However, in

order to expedite this legislation for floor consideration,

the Committee will forgo action on this bill. This is being

done with the understanding that it does not in any way

prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of

conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or

similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 4281, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during floor

consideration.

Sincerely,

Dave Camp,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, and then I would like to yield 2 minutes to the chair of the Highway Subcommittee, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, let's just deal with the facts. The fact is that the Democrats had six amendments--1 month, 1.5 months, 2.5 months, 1 month, 9 months, and 2 months--when they controlled the House of Representatives and the Senate by huge majorities, and the White House. They couldn't even get it through committee. They could not get it through committee. These are the facts.

List of Transportation Extensions

Extension #1: A Democratic controlled House passed

extension with a duration of 1-month from 10/01/2009 to 10/

31/2009.

Extension #2: A Democratic controlled House passed

extension with a duration of 1.5-months from 11/01/2009 to

12/18/2009.

Extension #3: A Democratic controlled House passed

extension with a duration of 2.5-months from 12/19/2009 to 2/

28/2010.

Extension #4: A Democratic controlled House passed

extension with a duration of 1-month from 3/01/2010 to 3/28/

2010.

Extension #5: A Democratic controlled House passed

extension with a duration of 9-months from 3/29/2010 to 12/

31/2010.

Extension #6: A Democratic controlled House passed

extension with a duration of 2-months from 1/01/2011 to 3/04/

2011.

Extension #7: A Republican controlled House passed

extension with a duration of 7-months from 3/05/2011 to 9/30/

2011.

Extension #8: A Republican controlled House passed

extension with a duration of 6-months from 10/01/2011 to 3/

31/2012.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I don't think it is appropriate that Members of my conference be referred to as bozos. I think that we have dedicated Americans, ladies and gentlemen, who serve this country and the Congress well.

The gentleman who just spoke on September 23, 2009, said:

Don't play politics with investments in our infrastructure,

don't play politics with the economy, don't play politics

with people's jobs, don't bring America to a screeching halt

on October 1 and walk away from your obligation to extend

this program.

Mr. Speaker, when they controlled the House in huge numbers, they could not pass that extension, nor could they pass, I'm told, any extension freestanding.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield, at this time, 2 minutes to the

chair of the Railroads Subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

I am going to continue to reserve the balance of my time and will close at the appropriate time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time to close.

Madam Speaker and my colleagues, I think it might be time right now, Madam Speaker, that we call the Capitol Physician to come to the House floor. I think we should call the Capitol Physician because there appears to be on the other side a mass case of loss of memory, and I think that we need to clear up just a few facts in what has been said here.

Now, we have the gentlelady from California who happened to be the Speaker of the House. As I recall, the other side controlled the House by a huge margin, the Senate by a significant margin--most of the time I think it was 60 votes where you could do anything--and they controlled the White House for those 2 years. They could have done anything they wanted to do. President Obama, in fact, sent Secretary LaHood to Mr. Oberstar and me--I was the ranking Republican, he was the chair--and cut the knees right out from the Democrats and said he wasn't doing a long-term bill, he was doing an 18-month bill, which really sent a death signal to transportation and infrastructure projects.

In fact, the other side would be in the majority probably and I would be the ranking member if they had just done what they could have done. Then they tell you that we can't pass a bill. Well, let's deal with the facts. They six times

had to do extensions. Not one extension was freestanding. In fact, one time they could not even pass the extension with the House, the Senate, and the White House. In March of 2010, they actually closed down programs.

Madam Speaker, we may need the House Physician because there are multiple cases of amnesia, and we need to remind folks about the facts and what they have forgotten.

Even in the extensions, I offered first a 90-day extension, and I know Speaker Boehner talked to the Senate and the other leaders and said we'll do a 90. No, we want to do a 60-day extension, they said. Then some of the Democrats felt like they were thrown under the bus, and the 60-day extension that they asked us to do, they couldn't get the votes for, they came down and spoke against yesterday.

Madam Speaker, there's something wrong here. I think we really need to get the Capitol Physician involved because the amnesia is very, very serious on the other side. They had earmarks. The last bill was passed with 6,300 earmarks. They had earmarks. They had control. They couldn't even pass a freestanding bill and get it to the full committee. So, again, I think the amnesia is pretty rampant on the other side.

I don't want this to be delayed any further because I want Americans to go back to work.

We offer here today a long-term bill that will put people who want jobs in this country back to work without earmarks and without tax increases. The end of the era of the biggest gorilla walking off with the most bananas is over, and we will pass responsible legislation, and we will get it done.

As the Cable Guy said, Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to ``Git-R- Done.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4239) to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4239, as amended.

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

My colleagues and Mr. Speaker, this is a 60-day extension that has been agreed to by our leadership and negotiated with the other side of the aisle. I believe it will ensure the surface transportation programs at the Department of Transportation will continue to function, and that we can continue programs across the country, ensuring our men and women stay in jobs at such a difficult time with our economy, again, needing some reliability in transportation programs from this Federal level.

So with that, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 4239, as amended, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, March 26, 2012.

Hon. John Mica,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Mica: I am writing concerning H.R. 4239, the

``Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012,'' which is

scheduled for floor consideration this week.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has

jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Code. Title IV of this

bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by extending

the current Highway Trust Fund expenditure authority and the

associated Federal excise taxes to June 1, 2012. However, in

order to expedite this legislation for floor consideration,

the Committee will forgo action on this bill. This is being

done with the understanding that it does not in any way

prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of

conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or

similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 4239, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during floor

consideration,

Sincerely,

Dave Camp.

Chairman.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, let's deal with just a few facts.

First of all, the fact is that this would be the ninth extension. The fact is that the Democrats, who are on the other side of the aisle, when they controlled the entire House of Representatives and the United States Senate--the other body--in a huge majority and the White House, they did six extensions. That's the first fact.

The second fact is that the folks from the other side of the aisle, when they controlled it, they weren't even able to get a bill out from subcommittee to full committee. We passed it in committee, and we've gotten it this far to the floor with huge majorities. They did not pass it.

Let's just deal with the facts. The facts are, on June 17, 2009, after my cooperating with the previous chair on the other side of the aisle to go forward with a long-term bill, it was President Obama who sent then-Secretary Ray LaHood to tell us that they were going to kill a 6-year bill that we had agreed on to move forward, which they couldn't even get out of committee, to an 18-month extension.

These are the facts. The fact is that they had 6,300 earmarks in the last bill, and they were open to earmarks in the bill that they were about to propose. This bill is being brought forward without tax increases. It is responsibly funded with dramatic reforms and, again, devolves to the States and local governments, which actually build these projects, the streamlining and other financial opportunities that they can take advantage of.

As for the part about bankrupting the trust fund, let's deal again with facts. The facts are that the bill that is proposed by the other body is a 2-year bill, and the trust fund money expires in 18 months. That's not responsible. The bill we brought out has a pay-for.

With regard to the comments that we're slashing, we are continuing at current levels. It's $52 billion for 5 years. Do the math. It's 260. The Senate bill is $109 billion. It's 54.9. We are increasing spending at a time when we shouldn't be increasing spending, but we're maintaining the current level. They count no increase as a cut. That's the kind of math that's going on here.

So I came to the floor because there was a bipartisan agreement between the leadership of the House and the Senate to move forward because we have to get people to work. This is my third extension. I have had the honor and privilege of chairing the committee for--what?-- 14 months now. I have cooperated with the other side, including holding extensive hearings in the district of the first gentleman who spoke, Mr. Rahall--in Beckley, West Virginia--all the way to the west coast. I've held dozens of hearings out in the field and here in Washington to try to develop legislation that could get the job done and so that we could do more with even the same amount of money and put people to work at this time in our country's history. So those are the facts.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chair of the Highway Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chair of our Rail Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the balance of time on each side?

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Shuster, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I yield the gentleman from Pennsylvania an additional 30 seconds.

I have no further speakers, and I would reserve my time to close.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Unfortunately, this has turned into, I guess, sort of a political ``gotcha'' game. If this was a sporting event right now, the umpire would probably come out, throw down the flag, and say a foul has been committed.

It's kind of sad that bipartisanship has become a one-way street. No one has worked harder than I have to try to accommodate the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, one of the former speakers said we had refused to work with the Democrats. That's not true. We took 60 percent of their recommendations. And one reason we took longer than I had hoped was to make certain that everybody had a fair and open opportunity. The process was completely open by going to the ranking member's district for the first hearing and all the way to the west coast.

In the amendment process, I told Members that everyone would be heard and everyone would have an opportunity to offer an amendment. Yes, we sat for 18 hours. We took over 100 amendments from the other side of the aisle, and each of them was considered with the respect and dignity that every Member of this body should have before everybody.

This is not true. Again, I just don't think it's fair.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) came to the floor and said that I was the only one that had a copy of the bill. In fact, the irony of it is that Mr. Bishop and his staff, everyone--in fact, all the Members were given a copy beforehand, which is twice the period of time in the past; and copies of the bill were distributed from his office, which he also admitted to in committee long before the bill came to the committee.

The Secretary said this is the worst bill he has seen, and it is for bureaucrats and for people in those tall buildings in Washington, because we're consolidating programs. We went from six core programs to 130. We have offices that we don't need, duplicate programs. Someone is trying to actually do reform.

Yes, we do substantial reform. They throw money at problems. We, at least, keep it level and we responsibly pay for it. But even when they threw money at things, like the stimulus that Mr. Shuster brought forward, 35 percent of the money and 2\1/2\ years later, that money was still sitting in the Federal Treasury because shovel-ready became a national joke; and it is a national joke

because of the red tape, the bureaucracy, all by those people who may lose their jobs in those glass buildings right here in our Nation's Capital.

Again, I don't think it's fair. I'm disappointed. We tried to do a 90-day bill. The House and the Senate are going to be out for 2 weeks for Easter. Then they come back, and one body is out and the other body is out and nobody is here. They weren't happy with 90 days, and we tried to accommodate the 60 days.

This is a political game of ``gotcha,'' and it's unfortunate because there are many Americans who are counting on us for jobs and many people who have lost their home, particularly in the construction industry. They don't want rhetoric. They want action from this Congress. If we just had a cooperative effort on this, and true bipartisanship, we could get so much done for the American people.

I'm saddened in a way, but I tell you I've done everything I can to move this forward. For some of those people I've talked to that don't have a job, that have lost their homes and their life savings, we need to put a few of them to work. And we can if people would stop the nonsense and move forward in a responsible fashion.

I yield back the balance of my time.