Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 128 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 128 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 662. This rule provides for ample debate and opportunities for Members on both sides of the aisle, the majority and minority, to make sure that they have ample time to participate, come to the floor, and express their ideas, which is what this new Republican majority is enabling Members to do.

I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. The underlying legislation is a simple extension of service transportation programs through September 30 of this year.

This legislation was introduced by the distinguished chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Chairman Mica, on February 11, 2011, with Ranking Member Rahall as an original cosponsor. It was reported out of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure by a voice vote on February 28, 2011. This legislation went through regular order with bipartisan support.

This is a clean, straight extension of current law, providing a hard freeze at 2009 spending levels through the end of this fiscal year. Without this legislation, the spending levels would expire on Friday, March 4, 2011.

In an effort to provide more transparency and accountability of how this body has been run, which is different than how this body has been run for the past 4 years, the Republican Conference adopted a policy that would no longer permit extensions of programs on a continuing resolution or any other appropriations bills. This allows Members a straight up or down vote on an issue at hand and, in this case, it is surface transportation.

The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011 continues the authorization of Federal highway, transit, and highway safety programs through the end of this fiscal year at the same program funding levels established for fiscal year 2009. This authorization is essential to allow funds that had been included in transportation appropriations legislation to flow to States and local transit agencies. We are not trying to get in the way of decisions that need to be made locally; we are simply trying to make sure that they are legally executed.

Should this straight extension of transportation funding not be signed into law before the March 4 deadline, the impact would be severe and immediate. A shutdown would result in immediate furloughs and suspension of payments to States, which would hamper the Federal Highway Administration's ability to pay contractors. This would jeopardize the States' transportation funding to a tune of $154 million a day, killing ongoing projects, things which had been agreed on and are being done locally.

This level of funding was extended by the previous Congress six times starting in October of 2009. Continuing this funding at 2009 levels allows for the appropriate funding for States to complete and manage their transportation projects. With an extension through the fiscal year, it will allow the new chairman of the Transportation Committee, my dear friend, the favorite son and gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) the appropriate time to hold necessary hearings to review and re- estimate the funding essential for States to carry on their transportation projects.

The Congressional Budget Office, which is also known as the CBO, has concluded that the underlying bill today does not affect direct spending or revenues. Further, the CBO determined

that, ``the nontax provisions of H.R. 662 contain no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments.''

Additionally, according to the Department of Transportation, surface transportation allows for international trade, which helps sustain and create jobs that support our national economy.

The data reported in the past 10 years says that U.S. surface transportation trade between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, has increased 48.6 percent, a 13.8 percent increase in the past year alone. In December 2010, imports were up 41.9 percent compared to December 2000, while exports were up 57.7 percent.

Currently, this trade is valued at $66.5 billion annually. In an ever increasing global market, the United States needs to ensure that our surface infrastructure can sustain the tremendous growth rate of trade so that we can maintain international competitiveness, create jobs and encourage economic growth in the United States of America.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I applaud the Republican leadership for following regular order for the bipartisan nature of this bill, for Republicans and Democrats working together through the entire process, and up to and including the gentleman, Mr. Dreier, the chairman of the Rules Committee, extending an unusual amount of time so that every single Member has an opportunity to come to this body and not only voice what they believe is important to them but also the time where they can come down and speak to important matters of this Congress.

The chairman and ranking member continue to work together to provide a necessary extension that will get us through the rest of the year, and I look forward to an open and transparent process for the reauthorization for next year's funding also. I have confidence in not only Chairman Mica, but also John Boehner and Eric Cantor, as they lead this House of Representatives on transportation issues, to do what's right for a beautiful country that expects Congress to have an open and transparent process that is good for all Members.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

December 2010 Surface Trade With Canada and Mexico Rose 13.8 Percent

from December 2009 (State Rankings in Tables 5 and 7)

Trade using surface transportation between the United

States and its North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

partners Canada and Mexico was 13.8 percent higher in

December 2010 than in December 2009, reaching $66.5 billion,

according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) of

the U.S. Department of Transportation (Table 1).

BTS, a part of the Research and Innovative Technology

Administration, reported that the value of U.S. surface

transportation trade with Canada and Mexico fell 2.2 percent

in December 2010 from November 2010 (Table 2). Month-to-month

changes can be affected by seasonal variations and other

factors.

Surface transportation consists largely of freight

movements by truck, rail and pipeline. In December, 84.8

percent of U.S. trade by value with Canada and Mexico moved

on land.

The value of U.S. surface transportation trade with Canada

and Mexico in December was up 12.6 percent compared to

December 2005, and up 48.6 percent compared to December 2000,

a period of 10 years. Imports in December were up 41.9

percent compared to December 2000, while exports were up 57.7

percent (Table 3).

U.S. Surface Transportation Trade with Canada

U.S.-Canada surface transportation trade totaled $39.8

billion in December, up 12.2 percent compared to December

2009. The value of imports carried by truck was 17.7 percent

higher in December 2010 compared to December 2009, while the

value of exports carried by truck was 10.4 percent higher

during this period (Table 4).

Michigan led all states in surface trade with Canada in

December with $4.7 billion (Table 5).

U.S. Surface Transportation Trade with Mexico

U.S.-Mexico surface transportation trade totaled $26.8

billion in December, up 16.3 percent compared to December

2009. The value of imports carried by truck was 16.3 percent

higher in December 2010 than December 2009 while the value of

exports carried by truck was 18.7 percent higher (Table 6).

Texas led all states in surface trade with Mexico in

December with $9.5 billion (Table 7).

The TransBorder Freight Data are a unique subset of

official U.S. foreign trade statistics released by the U.S.

Census Bureau. New data are tabulated monthly and historical

data are not adjusted for inflation. December TransBorder

numbers include data received by BTS as of Feb. 16.

The news release and summary tables can be found at http:// www.bts.gov. More information on TransBorder Freight Data and

data from previous months are posted on the BTS website at

http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/. BTS

will release January TransBorder numbers on March 29.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Carlsbad, California (Mr. Bilbray), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I enjoy my colleagues coming to the floor and talking about us being without a vision and that the people will perish. People are perishing all across our country because of the excessive spending that this administration and the previous two Congresses have placed upon the people. Excessive debt. This year, the President has estimated we will have a $1.650 trillion debt. And as best I can tell you, some sense of reality and dose of discipline must be invoked upon this Congress. That's what we're attempting to do not only by this bill today but by also following regular order, by allowing Members of Congress to come and speak very clearly on the floor, by allowing an open process, things which were never allowed in the previous two Congresses.

I appreciate Members coming to the floor and talking about what's in the best interests of the country. Madam Speaker, the bottom line is that the Republican majority is going to do something about jobs. We're going to do something about spending. We will bring discipline, authority, responsibility and actions directly to the floor of the House of Representatives as opposed to spending which was out of control, ideas which ran amok, and a lack of vision and clarity for our future. I'm very proud of what we're doing here today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will say that this process that we have had as opposed to having it just mixed in a resolution allows for a motion to recommit for the gentleman and his party, and it is my hope that they will take up that open process that we talked about where we'll see what their ideas are. In a few minutes we'll find out when they make that choice.

Madam Speaker, we've heard a lot of things during this debate, up to and including about thoughts and ideas about shutting down the government, that that looms ahead of us. Not one Republican, not one Republican, is talking about shutting down the government. It is an issue that Republican leadership, including the gentleman Mr. Boehner, the Speaker of this House, has openly talked about that we will do every single thing that we can do to avoid a government shutdown.

So it's my hope that this body would recognize, we're not offering that as a threat to the American people. We're open for doing business. We're trying to make sure we not only address this issue weeks ahead of time but that we're forthright about how we would go about giving options, opportunities, how we would work with the President and the Senate to make sure that we avoid this from happening.

Secondly, we heard about a vision statement, a vision statement that evidently is lacking now from Republicans. Well, the facts of the case are very simple and, that is, the vision that our country sees ahead right now is diminishment of jobs, of a free enterprise system that is overburdened by rules and regulations, a policy that comes from this administration that is about destroying jobs, whether it be from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission or, government-wide, an assault on the free enterprise system and upon employers.

So what we are trying to do is to offer some reassurance today that we will go ahead and reauthorize the Surface Transportation bill and that there will be the understanding that the gentleman--the fabulous chairman of the committee, John Mica from Florida--will, in fact, lead in a bipartisan effort with Ranking Member Rahall to provide the opportunity to make sure that there is public involvement, that open hearings are held, that we in committee talk about this, and that every Member is given a chance to participate.

That is what Republicans are now willing to do: regular order, open processes, and a chance to make sure, as they find their way here to the floor, that every single bill we want, where possible, allows for a Democrat motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, you heard me say earlier today that my Republican colleagues and I are committed to an open process and to far, far more accountability, transparency, and an open process than what our friends have ever allowed us for the last 4 years.

Today's legislation is a step in the right direction. The underlying bill has bipartisan support, even up at the Rules Committee, where Republicans and Democrats support this underlying legislation. It went through regular order, which is a structure which worked, and open debate on the floor. This is just the first step in the necessary transportation funding--an open dialogue with the American people, cities, States, counties--and it is essential that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee takes the time to review where it is and to come up with the recommendations in allowing for a future that will be even brighter and better.

Allowing this funding gives the States the tools that they need. We are working, as Chairman Mica is, with counties, cities, States, and with elected officials all across the country. The hard work that he is doing pays off again today. I will predict that we will pass this rule and this bill on a bipartisan basis because of the way our Speaker, John Boehner, our majority leader, Eric Cantor, and also the great chairman, John Mica, insist on making sure that the floor is run with openness for the body. I look forward to working with Chairman Mica and the rest of the committee on that endeavor.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 128, I call up the bill (H.R. 662) 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.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 662.

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

I come to the floor today to pass the extension of our major surface transportation legislation, that's H.R. 662.

I would like to first lead off by informing Members and the Speaker that this extension is a spending freeze at 2010 levels through September 30.

We find ourself in a situation where the major transportation legislation that authorizes all of the policies, the various projects, all the funding levels and all of the activities that are so important to job creation, to building the Nation's infrastructure, that legislation expired September 30, 2009.

In the past Congress, since that time, we have passed a number of short-term extensions. We are now on the sixth extension of that legislation.

What happens when the Congress does this is we end up sending the worst message and the worst policy possible across the Nation, across the land, to our States and our localities that are trying to build the Nation's infrastructure and trying to determine what Federal policy, what their partnership and funding relationship will be with the Federal Government.

Right now, in a time in which across this Nation we are experiencing some of the worst unemployment, in my district I have some areas with 17 percent unemployment. And where is that unemployment? That's in the construction industry.

So it's critical that we pass an extension of the current legislation and extension that we are on, the sixth extension that we are on, and we do that before Friday. Friday is when the current extension expires.

Again, this is important for jobs. Why? Our State transportation departments have only been able to do small

projects. Now, they have done some sidewalks, and they have done some repaving, and they have done some minor construction projects. But because they don't have a dependable Federal partner and the hiccup manner in which we have provided policy judgment funding direction as far as our Federal law for major transportation projects, because it's been done in such a helter-skelter fashion, people are not employed. Projects do not move forward. This is the worst time that this could happen. I am determined that that won't happen again.

Now, I might like to do a short-term extension, and some people have said we should do that. But the responsible thing for us to do now is to pass through the fiscal year--and this extension takes us to September 30--so States can plan, so people can get back to work, so we have some semblance of policy regarding building the Nation's infrastructure in place now. People are crying out for jobs across this country, and we may not pass any other piece of legislation this year but our transportation and infrastructure legislation.

This, and the FAA reauthorization, in addition to highway and surface and all the other modes, our FAA extensions have become almost the saddest commentary you could have on building, again, the Nation's important infrastructure. We have done 17 extensions of the FAA legislation, so our airports and others can't plan. Now, we are not going to let that happen under our watch. We are going to set policy today and extend until the end of this fiscal year in a responsible manner.

Some people on the conservative side of the aisle, and I will match my credentials with any of them, want to know about the money that's being spent.

This is not money that's general revenue. This is entirely within the trust fund, the Federal Highway and Transit Trust Fund.

When we came here, we also said we were going to force the Congress to spend more money in general revenue than we had in that fund, and this extension adheres to the policy that we won't be reckless in spending and we won't spend beyond what we have in the fund. This extension only expends funds from within that trust fund. So I want my conservative friends--and I consider myself in the conservative fiscal corner, the responsible corner in spending--to know that that is the way this is crafted. So, again, I think we have an obligation to move forward. We are doing it on a sound basis. We are freezing at the 2010 levels. And we will be able, at least until September, to get people to work.

Now, I know sometimes I can move legislation along in this body, and I work hard sometimes to do that. But I can tell you I cannot pass a full authorization bill by this Friday. We just took over, again, some of these responsibilities a few weeks ago. We've had six extensions. I don't want to get to, again, into a situation where we are doing these short-term, job-killing extensions.

So that's the reason that we're here. That's the responsibility that we have as a Congress in moving forward and again setting that policy and setting a timeframe in which our States and others who actually do these projects can operate. And again, it's being done within the responsible parameters that this new Congress and the House of Representatives has set forward.

I do want to say, finally, that I thank my colleague, Mr. Rahall, who is the ranking member, for his interest in moving forward with a long- term bill. In reaching out, we held the first of our hearings, and we're doing these around the country. We've done more than a dozen from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We started in Beckley, West Virginia, a little over a week ago, in the hometown of the ranking member because we want our permanent legislation to be long term, a 6-year bill, to have in place sound policy. We want it done on a bipartisan basis. And to ensure also that it was done on a bicameral basis, we did almost an unprecedented hearing with Senator Boxer, the gentlelady from California, who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee of the United States Senate. We did a joint bicameral, bipartisan hearing in Los Angeles last week to kick off our larger effort to, again, have in place the very best policy regarding our infrastructure for the Nation.

So with those comments, again, I want to thank folks that we have an agreement here to move forward. We need to do that. We need to get people working in this country and do it in a responsible fashion. And I believe that H.R. 662 will do that.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, February 28, 2011.

Hon. John Mica,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Mica: I am writing concerning H.R. 662, the

``Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011,'' 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, and thus falls

within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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. 662, 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.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, who is one of the primary leaders in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the chair of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, Mr. Duncan.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), another leader of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the chair of the Rail Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to another

outstanding member and a new member of our committee who has great local government experience as a former mayor, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta).

I would like to inquire as to the balance of time on each side.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further requests for time, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Each of us who is sent to Congress, Madam Speaker, has certain responsibilities. First, we have responsibilities to our constituents in our districts. Then we are sent here, and by the grace of the good Lord, on our side the steering committee, the approval of leadership and our colleagues, we get to do certain tasks.

Mine is now to try to shepherd forward transportation policy for our country. That's an important responsibility, again, because we have millions of Americans who don't have jobs. Probably the hardest thing that I face when I go home or when I talk to folks across the country and in my district are the people who have lost their homes, who can't make their mortgage payments or who are struggling. They want to go to work, most of them I've talked to, and they don't have the opportunity.

Now, I know a new Congress has come, and that new Congress has been sent a very clear message about spending, about conserving assets and resources here. I think that Congress gets it and that the American people have mandated that approach. We can also many times be here, doing things that might prove a political point; but from time to time, we have to step back, and we have to do something for the very good of the country. I think this is one of those times that we have an important obligation.

What will happen on Friday, if we don't act accordingly today and pass H.R. 662, is literally a disaster because we will shut down all of the transportation projects across the land, those projects that have any connection to the Federal Government.

Now, we have also said that we can't pass in continuing resolutions the authorization for legislation, so that's the situation we find ourselves in today. We have a bipartisan agreement to move forward. We have an opportunity to actually expand and define the time in which we can accomplish the important work of government.

Some people say, oh, these are just transportation projects. Yet, if you go back to the very beginning of the Nation, they came together first for national security; but then the Founding Fathers--Washington, Jefferson--were pretty smart. They also wanted to be able to do infrastructure projects that transcended arbitrary political boundaries. I love to read about Washington and his vision to open the canals and the post roads. Some of the first work of the Congress was to authorize transportation and infrastructure projects for the Nation, through the vision of people like Lincoln, to connect the continent. So that kind of leadership has come from people in the past, and we have that responsibility today to move forward.

So I think that people can go home after they vote for this and say, I did something positive. We acted in a fiscally responsible way. We're dealing with the trust fund money that people have paid in. When they put gallons of gasoline in their cars, they paid 18.4 cents, which went into the trust fund.

We didn't spend recklessly, but we did act responsibly and we're getting people working again. And we did it in a period of time, not the hiccup and the sporadic six passed extensions, in a timeframe in which we can actually get major infrastructure projects, people working again. So I think we can all take heart in a bipartisan effort that we've had here that Congress can work and the people's work can get done by people coming together.

I know we still have disagreements on policy, and I've pledged to work on both sides. I even offered to buy the beer and pizza when we finish the listening tours. And with Senator Boxer, she wanted, I think, fruit drinks, and I'll even throw those in, too, if we can come together and establish sound policy for the Nation so infrastructure can move forward. And we can do it. I really think we can do it.

So we have 6 months of definition. We have 6 months to get the rest of the job done. But I'm confident that everybody here today can join and we can make a difference, a difference for those people wanting us to be responsible and do what they sent us here for.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, again, this is a purely technical amendment and reviewed by both sides of the aisle in both bodies. We found three technical changes to correct drafting errors in H.R. 662. We want this to go to the President. We want it signed, and we want to make certain that it has all the technical provisions necessary and clear language.

So the amendment adds two commas to the bill on page 12 and also another on 15. And on page 15, it also strikes an authorization in the current extension that H.R. 662 failed to strike. So it's purely technical in nature, but we do want it correct.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Well, congratulations my colleagues. Welcome to the era of smoke and mirrors, and that's exactly what this motion to recommit is; and I urge its defeat.

You heard the gentleman describing bridges. He, again, is trying to mislead the entire House on this particular motion to recommit. It is smoke and mirrors.

I urge the defeat of the motion to recommit.

I thank my good friend from Texas for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 662, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011, prevents our Nation's highway, transit, and safety programs from expiring ahead of the upcoming construction season by extending them at fiscal year 2010 funding levels through September 30 of this year.

My friend from Texas referenced the fact that it would be bad if we did not do this before March 4, and I agree with him thoroughly. I am hopeful that he has the same attitude with reference to the overall aspect of any kind of shutdown of the government. A shutdown would be bad in any of its particulars, and not just as he referenced it, that I agree with, in the area of transportation and infrastructure.

This extension allows States to continue signing contracts, managing planning and construction, and paying for vital transportation and infrastructure projects while we finalize a multiyear authorization to update our network. As all of us know, our interstate highways, roads, and bridges are in desperate need of repairs and improvements. All you have to do is drive around Washington to prove that.

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers in their 2009 report card, which rates the operational condition and future capacity of dams, levees, railways, roads, bridges, and transit by letter grade, our Nation's surface infrastructure is rated at a ``D.''

This is deplorable and, frankly, it's embarrassing--embarrassing for several reasons. I came here in 1992. We were advocating on both sides of the aisle that we should be about the business of repairing bridges in this country, and the multiples are enormous from that time. We were talking 14,000 bridges.

More than 26 percent of our Nation's bridges today are either ``structurally deficient or functionally obsolete,'' with the number of such bridges in urban areas on the rise. And we have seen what disasters can occur when a bridge collapses.

Existing rail capacity is inadequate to handle future freight and passenger rail growth without significant investment. Last year, I took the Amtrak to New York, and when returning to Washington, I looked at the rail underbed. I grew up near a railroad in Altamonte Springs, Florida. And the railbed in that time where I grew up in the 40s was 100 percent better than the railbed just outside of this city on the Amtrak line. That's ridiculous.

Our interstate highway program has changed little since it was created in the 1950s by the distinguished President, Dwight Eisenhower's vision. With ever-increasing congestion--and we see it right around here--and improvement costs, our Nation's roads were even poorer at a D-minus in 2009. One-third of America's roads are in poor or mediocre condition, and 45 percent of major urban highways are congested.

Just last January, the main road in and out of one of the cities that I'm privileged to represent, the city of Pahokee, was closed for 17 days because of sunken asphalt. Now, that may not sound like much, a little old town like Pahokee being cut off. But a collapsed culvert had created a 2-inch dip measuring 252 square feet in size on the northbound lane of State Road 715. This resulted in hours-long detours for commuters and trucks, stymied local and regional business, and regrettably reduced access to Glades General Hospital and Pahokee Airport.

Similar stories can be found throughout my home State of Florida and indeed in communities across this Nation. We can, and we must, do better.

Just as routine and preventive health care costs much less than a trip to the emergency room, regular maintenance and improvements cost less than major overhauls and replacement. According to Transportation for America, for every dollar that we spend today on maintenance, we avoid $14 in future costs.

H.R. 662 obligates up to $42.5 billion for Federal-aid highway programs and $639 million for the equity bonus programs to ensure that States receive in Federal highway funds a certain portion of the gasoline taxes that they contribute.

Investing in our Nation's roads is about more than getting from point A to point B faster, which would be, in many respects, reason enough for many commuters. It's about having more time, about having more money, and about having more opportunities to work, play, live, and enjoy life. Americans spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic at a cost to the economy of $78.2 billion. That averages to $710 per motorist. Furthermore, poor conditions cost motorists $67 billion a year in repairs and operating costs.

One way to ease congestion is getting more people to use public transit. In fact, transit use increased 25 percent between 1995 and 2005, faster than any other mode of transportation. However, nearly half of American households do not have access to bus or rail transit, and only 25 percent have what they consider to be a good alternative.

On that note, increasing the capacity of our transportation and infrastructure network means nothing if our roads are not safe. Each year, thousands of people die in road crashes in the United States, and millions more are injured or disabled. As cochair of the Congressional Caucus on Global Road Safety, I recognize that road crash fatalities and disabilities represent a serious public health concern. This extension authorizes $742 billion in highway-safety programs administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, as well as $597 million for truck-safety activities of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, in order to help save lives and minimize crash-related injuries.

Safe, dependable, and efficient transportation is essential to our economic recovery and our Nation's competitiveness. At a time when unemployment in the construction industry is double the national rate, this extension provides much-needed market stability to create and sustain thousands of jobs.

The transportation sector has played a crucial role in rebuilding the U.S. economy, most recently through the Recovery Act, which provided $27.5 billion in new funding for surface transportation programs through the existing Federal-aid highway program and $8.4 billion for transit. In addition, $1.5 billion and $600 million were made available in two rounds, respectively, by the discretionary grant program known as TIGER, the Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery.

Extending these highway, transit, and other surface transportation programs is not only essential to our Nation's continued economic recovery, but also to our long-term prosperity and future. Today, we find ourselves on the cusp of a great opportunity, the opportunity to make meaningful investments in the future of this country, improve our quality of life and cut future debt. We need a truly interconnected, multi-modal system that effectively utilizes high-speed rail, light rail, streetcars, van pools, motor carriers by water, efficient buses, cars and

bikes. We need a system that helps ensure that lower-income workers can also get to and hold down jobs, a system that gets people where they need to go, increases our energy independence through new sources and innovative technologies, improves air quality, reduces traffic deaths and injuries, and creates jobs by supporting America's hard-hit construction and manufacturing sectors.

It is imperative that we not only extend the surface transportation programs through the end of the current fiscal year, but also pass a multi-year--yes, multi-year, as many as a 6-year--reauthorization as soon as possible. A new multi-year surface transportation authorization will create even more jobs and ensure that we can meet our growing transportation needs in the 21st century in a way that is affordable, efficient, innovative, resilient, sustainable, and accountable.

In this country, highways, roads, bridges and transit are neither Democratic nor Republican. They serve all Americans and help bring us closer together, literally.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I say to my colleague and my friend from California, sign me up.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), the ranking member of the Railroad Subcommittee and my classmate. We came here together.

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

And I would also take this opportunity, if she would yield to me, to ask her a question.

The previous SAFETEA-LU measure provided some funding for a high-speed rail corridor. This particular provision does not. Am I correct that if we were to do the high-speed rail project, that the lowest estimate is it would provide 30,000 jobs?

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, when the gentlewoman from Florida was speaking about the light rail program that may expire on Friday, and I am hopeful that our Governor will understand that, a retort came from my friend from Texas about her saying about a lack of vision is what causes these kinds of matters. The gentlewoman from Florida was talking about light rail. I don't recall my friend from Texas being upset when we did light rail in Houston, and I was for that. I might add all of us know that we need to move people as best we can in other methodologies, as I have described earlier.

Madam Speaker, Democrats and Republicans must work together to invest more in our Nation's aging transportation infrastructure network; invest more, not less. We have a vision for America's future transportation infrastructure. Now we need the leadership to make it a reality. I shudder to think what would have happened to this Nation's overall national security had Dwight Eisenhower not had the vision and those Congresspersons who were here and the American people did not agree that we would have an interstate highway system. I understand that it takes money to do these things.

Let's look at Minnesota as an example. When the bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, tragically, lives were lost and a system that was a city's lifeblood had to be repaired. It has been repaired. But wouldn't it have been so much better, not just to avoid the tragedy, that's obvious, but could we not have as we do see in some of these situations, that these bridges need repair, these levees need repair. The Congresspersons from Louisiana were talking about the levees that were blown away during Katrina 10 years before that happened. I stand here today and talk about a levee in the Everglades that unless it's repaired, it is going to cause a disaster. You either pay me now on these things or you pay a whole lot later. We're not talking about not spending, not investing. We're talking about doing it wisely and with accountability.

While I support the underlying bill, I would like to express my disappointment at the closed process. My colleague comes down here and talks about all the Members are going to get a chance to come down here and they're going to get a chance to express their ideas. Well, there may be some Members that may have had an amendment that might innovate something or might improve our transportation system. My friend from Texas will claim that this is technically not a closed rule, and it's true that the rule did allow one--one--amendment by Chairman Mica, who wrote the underlying bill that I support. You heard that correctly. The only Member who is allowed to offer an amendment is the same Member who wrote the bill.

On January 5, the distinguished Speaker of this House for whom I have great respect, and he is a friend of mine, stated the following:

``Above all else, we will welcome the battle of ideas, encourage it, and engage in it--openly, honestly, and respectfully. As the Chamber closest to the people, the House works best when it is allowed to work its will.''

My colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) offered a motion for an open rule, so these important matters could be debated openly on the House floor. But this amendment was defeated last night, or yesterday, in a party-line vote. In addition, I also made a motion to amend the rule and make in order an amendment by Delegate Holmes Norton of Washington, D.C. and cosponsored by Mr. Moran of Virginia which would simply have permitted the District of Columbia to spend its own money after March 4--in other words, this coming Friday--in the event of a government shutdown. That was defeated on a party-line vote.

I ask you, Madam Speaker, does this sound like an open process to you? I

urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and instead pass this much-needed extension through a truly open process that allows all Members to offer amendments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, usually when something is killed, it stays dead. But just like in a bad zombie movie, some bad earmarks refuse to die and return to life time and time again as wasteful spending. That's what's happened with this bill and what this amendment corrects.

There isn't an American taxpayer out there who hasn't heard of the Bridge to Nowhere. The Bridge to Nowhere has become synonymous with government waste.

What Americans may be shocked to find out is a significant portion of the $454 million that Congress provided through eight separate earmarks in SAFETEA-LU is still available in Alaska to build these bridges. We fix that with this amendment and eliminate these return-from-the-dead earmarks

with this amendment to save taxpayers money and restore credibility to Congress.

Although Congress has tried to stop these bridges to nowhere by giving Alaska the authority to use its earmarked funds on other transportation projects, Alaska has still used $71 million of Federal funds provided under SAFETEA-LU to continue work on two bridges to nowhere. Sadly, Alaska's earmarked bridges to nowhere, like zombies eating the brains of taxpayers, refuse to die.

Frankly, like most Americans I thought Federal funding for the bridges to nowhere was a thing of the past. ABC News reported in 2007 the Bridge to Nowhere is gone. This bridge had collapsed even before it was built after an onslaught of angry editorials, furious anti-pork citizen groups, and caustic jokes on late-night TV.

But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this zombie has climbed from its grave and is terrorizing American taxpayers to the tune of $180 million in deficit spending to build two bridges, one of which is a bridge that from an engineering perspective is comparable to the Golden Gate Bridge to an island with 50 people.

Now, but wait, we are not calling it an earmark because we have abolished earmarks in this Congress. So, instead, we are taking Republican earmarks from previous sessions of Congress and calling them something else.

Is that the new spending plan? Is that how we are going to balance the budget? Now, many Republicans in this body have used the bridges to nowhere as an example of wasteful spending.

My colleague and friend from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) stated that ``while some earmarks fund worthy projects, there are some, such as the infamous `Bridge to Nowhere' that are wasteful uses of taxpayer money.''

My friend from Indiana (Mr. Pence) said, ``All spending bills passed in 2007 included some 11,000 earmarks. Those earmarks included wasteful spending for items such as a $20 million ferry are in Alaska benefiting just 40 people. That, of course, followed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere earmark from the 2005 highway bill.''

So here we have a wasteful expenditure that not only had its origin as an earmark but has been used by fiscal hawks from both sides of the aisle as the very example of a wasteful earmark.

If Alaska wants to build a bridge to nowhere or a road to nowhere or a road to somewhere, bridge to somewhere, go ahead and do it, just do it without Federal tax dollars.

My colleague from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) said: ``Taxpayers are tired of their hard-earned money paying for things like a Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska, fruit fly research in France and a hippie museum in New York.''

Well, this bill doesn't fund a fruit fly museum in France or a hippie museum; but unless we act by passing this amendment, it will allow $183 million of taxpayer money to be spent for bridges for nowhere, wasteful spending we can't afford.

Despite claims that the Bridge to Nowhere earmarks were eliminated, Alaska spent over $71 million of Federal money. You know, in 2006, when the Republicans lost their majority and entered the minority, Mr. Cantor, the leader, said Republicans have become ``a party of the Bridge to Nowhere.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, it looks like too little has changed.

Unless this amendment passes, the Republicans once again will become a party lost on the Bridge to Nowhere. This motion rescinds all remaining funds, about $183 million provided for the planning, design and construction of the two bridges under SAFETEA-LU. In addition, the amendment prohibits the use of funds to finance these bridge projects.

This is a very simple choice. There is no politics in this. We are not changing other parts of the bill, trying to catch people up. We are not putting up a vote to trap people for 30-second spots to say they are for pornography, like has been done in previous sessions while the bill is gutted elsewhere. What we are simply providing is a clean vote on the Bridge to Nowhere.

According to the CBO, this motion will reduce the deficit by $160 million by eliminating funding for these two bridges, nothing else. Listen, for us to have the credibility as a Congress to make the tough cuts we need to balance the budget, to work together to pass a CR that cuts spending, to reduce spending in future years, Congress must have moral standing. Continuing to provide funding to be used for these bridges, the infamous Alaska bridges to nowhere, which most Americans like me thought were already dead, is not the way for Congress to build trust with the American people.

So we have a choice today. We can vote to continue these most egregious earmarks; or we can stand by our words, our vows, and our values and vote for this amendment and finally put an end to wasteful spending and pet projects.

Let me close with some words of wisdom from my colleague from West Virginia, Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito: ``The days of members slipping in 'the bridge to nowhere' in the dead of night are over.'' I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to shine the light of day on this insidious example of pork, remove it from the bill and pass the House amendment.

Summary

In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Efficient Transportation

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59)

provided a total of $454 million for the construction of two

bridges in Alaska--the Gravina Island bridge and the Knik Arm

bridge--through eight separate earmarks in the law. Since

2005, the public, media, and Members of Congress have

questioned the merits of these projects and condemned the use

of scarce Federal surface transportation funds to finance

these projects, commonly referred to as the ``Bridges to

Nowhere.''

SAFETEA-LU provides $223 million of Federal-aid highway

funds for the Gravina Island bridge. The $304 million bridge

under consideration, which rivals the Golden Gate Bridge in

size and scope, would serve an island of 50 people, who can

access Ketchikan, Alaska, via a five-minute ferry ride.

In addition, the act provides $231 million of Federal-aid

highway funds for the Knik Arm Crossing project. The Knik Arm

bridge is a project to build a 1.6-mile long bridge, 790-foot

tunnel, and 18 miles of connecting roads at a cost of

approximately $1.6 billion, including approximately $740

million for phase 1 of the project.

Despite claims that the ``Bridges to Nowhere'' earmarks

were eliminated, Alaska has spent more than $71 million of

Federal SAFETEA-LU funds to proceed with these bridge

projects and accompanying access roads over the past six

years.

The Motion to Recommit rescinds all remaining funds--

approximately $183 million--provided for planning, design,

and construction of the Gravina Island and Knik Arm bridges

under SAFETEA-LU. In addition, the motion prohibits the use

of any funds provided under the Surface Transportation

Extension Act of 2011 to finance these bridge projects.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Motion to

Recommit will reduce the Federal deficit by approximately

$160 million over the next 10 years.

These earmarks also contribute to Alaska's high rate of

return for its gas tax contributions. Over the six-year

period of SAFETEA-LU (FY 2004 through FY 2009), Alaska

received an average $5.20 for each dollar that the State

contributed to the Highway Trust Fund.

Gravina Island Bridge

Gravina Island is a small land mass (21 miles long and 9.5

miles wide) located in Ketchikan Gateway, Alaska. According

to the latest Census data, the island has a population of 50

people. Ketchikan International Airport is located on the

island. The island can be accessed by a five-minute ferry

ride across Tongass Narrows from Ketchikan, and an average of

10,000 vehicles per month use the ferry crossing. A ferry

arrives and departs every 15 to 30 minutes.

Alaska received a total of $223 million in SAFETEA-LU to

finance the construction of the Gravina Island bridge and

accompanying access roads. Although Congress expanded the

eligible uses of the earmarked funds in legislation

subsequent to SAFETEA-LU, Alaska continues to be able to use

these funds on the bridge and access road projects. In 2008,

Alaska completed construction of the Gravina Island Highway

to provide access to the proposed bridge. Alaska used $37.6

million of Federal funds provided under SAFETEA-LU for the

project. Given that the bridge does not exist at this point,

the road currently leads nowhere.

According to the Alaska State Legislature Budget and Audit

Committee, Alaska has specifically reserved $75.9 million of

the remaining SAFETEA-LU funds to improve access to Gravina

Island and is currently conducting a supplemental

environmental impact statement that includes construction of

a $304 million bridge as an alternative.

According to the Federal Highway Administration, $125.8

million remains available for expenditure from the amounts

provided in SAFETEA-LU for the Gravina Island bridge.

Knik Arm Bridge

The Knik Arm Bridge project proposes the construction of a

1.6-mile bridge across Knik Arm connecting Anchorage with the

borough of Mat-Su, along with 18 miles of access

roads to the bridge, at a cost of approximately $1.6 billion,

including $740 million for construction of the bridge in

phase 1 of the project. In 2003, Alaska established the Knik

Arm Bridge and Toll Authority to construct the bridge. On

December 15, 2010, the Federal Highway Administration

approved the Environmental Impact Statement Record of

Decision to construct the 8,200-foot bridge, 790-foot tunnel,

and 18 miles of access roads.

Alaska received a total of $231 million in SAFETEA-LU to

finance the planning, design, and construction of the Knik

Arm bridge and accompanying access roads. Although Congress

expanded the eligible uses of the earmarked funds in

legislation subsequent to SAFETEA-LU, Alaska has used $45.4

million of Federal funds provided under SAFETEA-LU for the

project.

According to the Federal Highway Administration, $57.4

million remains available for expenditure from the amounts

provided in SAFETEA-LU for the Knik Arm bridge.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 662 the Surface Transportation Extension Act. This legislation would provide a necessary short term extension of surface transportation programs through September 20, 2011. I strongly prefer more comprehensive, multi-year appropriations legislation that more adequately funds the transportation and infrastructure projects that we as Members have identified in our districts as crucial to our economic recovery. The bridges, highways, rail systems necessary to our economic recovery and sustained economic growth and global competitiveness are not built in a year.

However, I cannot support letting the sun set on necessary funding of critical surface transportation and infrastructure projects while we pursue longer term solutions in the face of a misplaced focus on spending cuts. I will not allow this on my watch. My colleagues here in Congress must not allow this to occur either. We must work together to forge a bipartisan long-term solution to our nation's transportation and infrastructure needs.

Economic experts universally agree that funding the critical and necessary infrastructure projects nationwide creates jobs for America and increases our level of global competitiveness. There is an intense competition between fiscal responsibility and investment in job growth and infrastructure. We must make investments in job creating infrastructure projects in order to grow the U.S. economy.

We must be winners in contest for economic change now and for our children's future. We cannot be the losers. We must catch the wave of economic growth or be crushed by it. China, India and Europe understand this because they have committed to greater investments in their infrastructure.

As I think of my home District, the 18th Congressional District in Houston, Texas and its busy port, much like the other ports around this great nation, I am compelled to urge my colleagues to consider the pressing national necessity of decongesting the surface transportation, both rail and highway, that moves the goods in and out of those ports. We must improve this surface transportation system in order to accommodate national economic health, global competitiveness, and to avoid harm to agriculture industry, maritime jobs and manufacturing jobs. Maritime jobs and construction jobs for infrastructure provide a good middle class wage, allow workers to get educations at night, and lower crime rates in our cities.

We must invest in High Speed Rail. We have about 500 miles of high speed rail in process, but China has about 10,000 miles being built. We need to have a domestic talent pool with the required knowledge, skills and trained workers to do projects like high speed rail or we will be paying for skilled Chinese companies to do it for us.

Infrastructure Investment is a Non-Partisan Issue: If the AFL-CIO and U.S. Chamber of Commerce have teamed up to promote infrastructure investment, then surely the Democrats and Republicans in this Congress can do the same. Moreover, now is the time for us to consider the creation of a long overdue National Infrastructure Bank and Public- Private partnerships to shift our infrastructure improvement into full gear. We should not shy away from this issue when a nation is waiting for us to do our part to restore our economy through fortification of our infrastructure. It is time for another large, bold, national forward thinking infrastructure project like interstate highway system.

Governors and Mayors at ground level around this nation will quickly confirm that Infrastructure investments create jobs, help balance budgets, and grow both state and national economies. We must listen to our local elected officials who must fix the potholes, repair the crumbling bridges and tunnels or be held directly accountable by their constituents on every street corner. Our local elected officials will quickly tell us that infrastructure investment creates jobs, because it attracts business.

The American Association of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gives U.S. Infrastructure the Grade of ``D'' in its 2009 Report Card. Infrastructure Investment equals Jobs. But, the U.S. is falling behind its competitors in infrastructure development (especially China, India and Europe). The bottom line is that Transportation and Infrastructure Investment is needed for a Strong Economy.

So, I say to my colleagues that we must pass H.R. 662. A delay in enactment of this extension will shut down more than $800 million next week in highway reimbursements and transit grants to States and urban areas, endangering more than 28,000 jobs and multi-million dollar construction projects across the country.

I must say that I am very disturbed that we cannot get our colleagues to cooperate in a bi-partisan manner to pass essential appropriations bills and must instead resort to short-term measures. However, for the good people of the 18th Congressional District of Texas, the State of Texas, and our national well being, I cannot let time expire on critical transportation and infrastructure funding. It is imperative that we pass H.R. 662 to continue to fund transportation and infrastructure programs without interruption. We must keep this nation moving forward toward progress.

I would also urge my colleagues in the House and the Senate chambers to reconsider the local transportation and infrastructure expenditures that Members have identified in the 111th Congress and in the 112th Congress for inclusion in appropriations measures. Members of Congress are in a front line position to identify useful and necessary projects in their districts that require funding. These projects create jobs, rebuild our infrastructure and benefit our districts, our states and our country, as well. Though, I recommended funding for critical transportation and infrastructure projects in Houston, Texas, during the 111th Congress, this funding was excluded from the Continuing Resolution passed in December 2010 and an opportunity to improve our national economy was lost.

As we move forward, it is my hope that both chambers in the House and Senate will take a bipartisan approach to moving vitally important appropriations legislation which includes useful, necessary, job creating and economy-building projects from our districts. This is the fiscally responsibly course and grows and strengthens our economy in the long run.

In summation, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this H.R. 662 as we continue the work of funding our nation's critical transportation and infrastructure projects.