H.Res. 547

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Unfortunately, according to the Congressional Budget Office, these drilling measures the Republicans are bringing out on the House floor today, together, would only raise $4.3 billion over 10 years, less than one-tenth of the revenue shortfall needed to fund our highways.

In reality, this bill amounts to little more than a giveaway of our public lands to Big Oil under the guise of funding our Nation's transportation projects, and most estimates are that no new revenue will be produced that is usable for this transportation bill.

Across the United States, oil production is at its highest level in nearly a decade. Natural gas production has reached levels we have never seen before in the United States. Oil production on public lands offshore is higher than it was during each of the last 3 years of the Bush administration.

According to industry analysts, by this summer, there will be nearly 30 percent more floating rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico than there were prior to the BP spill. Yet the Republican bill would threaten the tourism and fishing economies of coastal States by allowing drilling off of our beaches in Florida, in California, up and down our east and west coasts, and, as well, in an area extensively used by the military where even Secretary Rumsfeld said ``drilling structures and associated development would be incompatible with military activities'' in this area.

This Congress has not enacted a single safety improvement since the BP spill. The bill would allow for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, ripping out the heart of the crown jewel of our National Wildlife Refuge System. The Arctic Refuge is America's Serengeti. It is one of the natural wonders of the world, like the Grand Canyon, Niagara Falls, or the Great Barrier Reef, and it should be protected.

If we allow drilling in the Arctic Refuge, it will set a precedent that will allow the oil and gas industry to place a bull's-eye on each of the 540 wildlife refuges across this country. And this legislation would rush to give away 125,000 acres of public land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to Big Oil for oil shale development. However, there is no commercially viable oil shale technology, and oil shale development could have significant impacts on water quality and quantity in the West if there were a commercially viable technology available, which Shell Oil and the Department of the Interior says does not yet exist.

In fact, the Government Accountability Office has said that the impacts of oil shale development on water could be significant but are unknown. What's more, this provision has been included by the majority, despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office says that it would not raise any revenue over the next 10 years to fund our highways. So understand that.

This is a provision which CBO says raises no revenue in the next 10 years, but it's just stuck in here. The oil and gas industry would like to see it, so they just tossed it in. Nothing to do with funding transportation.

And the majority's drilling bills wouldn't even ensure that American natural gas stays here in America to help our consumers. Natural gas prices are six times higher in Asia than they are right here. They are more than three times higher in Europe than they are right here.

Low natural gas prices have been driving the economic recovery of the United States. We have far more natural gas in our country--and it's very low-priced--then we have oil. What the Republican bill will allow to happen is for this natural gas to be exported around the world, and exporting our natural gas would eliminate our competitive edge by driving prices up by as much as 54 percent, according to the Department of Energy.

Not ensuring that the natural gas stays here in the United States ensures that the majority, the Republicans, are imposing a de facto natural gas tax on American agriculture, manufacturing, chemicals, steel, plastics by allowing our gas to be exported.

Here's what T. Boone Pickens says about the idea of exporting American natural gas. Here's what he says:

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

dumbest generation. It's bad public policy to export natural

gas.

Our natural gas is six times cheaper than Asian; it is three times cheaper than European. What are we doing exporting it? We should keep it here for our own farmers, for our own industries, for our own consumers. That's how we begin to put ourselves on a path of energy independence.

I agree with T. Boone Pickens. We should keep our natural gas here. We should not be following the Republican energy plan of drill here, sell there, and pay more. If we sell this natural gas around the world, the Department of Energy says the price is going up 57 percent here because we'll have less of it. That's how supply and demand works.

The same dynamic exists in the Keystone portion of the bill, where Republicans have failed to include any assurances that even a drop of the oil or the fuels will stay in this country.

When I asked the president of TransCanada, the pipeline company from Canada, whether he would be willing to commit to keeping the oil that passes through this pipeline in the United States, he said no. And why? Because the oil companies and the refineries want to export the fuels to the highest bidders around the world, leaving the American people with all of the environmental risk and little or none of the energy or economic benefit.

So drill here, sell there, pay more, that's not the Republican mantra. Drill here, drill now, pay less. Now they've morphed into what the oil and gas industry want, and all of the economic indicators point to the conclusion that our consumers will be harmed by that.

On the question of the totality of the economic benefits for our country, they are simultaneously proposing to kill the tax breaks for the wind industry, which is now creating 85,000 jobs in our country, in the face of the wind industry, saying that they will have to lay off 40,000 people over the next year unless the production tax break for the wind industry stays on the books.

So all of this is basically upside down as an energy policy. My strongest admonition to the Members who are listening to this debate is to vote ``no'' on this Republican proposal.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

When the Democrats controlled the Congress in 2009, we passed a bill out here on the House floor that created an advanced energy technology bank that included $75 billion that the nuclear industry could have qualified for, $60 billion for the coal industry for clean coal technology. Although we also built in incentives for wind and for solar and for energy efficiency, we did it all. We gave everyone a running head start. We didn't say ``nothing'' to nuclear. No.

What have the Republicans done over the last year? They passed out here on the floor a bill that zeroed out the money for loan guarantees for wind and solar, but they left in the loan guarantees for the nuclear industry. That's not an all-of-the-above strategy, and you all voted for it unanimously.

No. Here's where we are. This oil-above-all strategy that you have, not all-of-the-above, this is basically at the heart of what this whole debate is all about.

Last year, the oil industry in the United States made $137 billion. This year, they're going to blast right past that $137 billion. Every person watching this debate is looking at the pump right now at $3.50, $4, $4.50 that they're paying, and it's going straight up.

They're going to be reporting profits of upwards of $200 billion. The Republicans continue to keep in the $4 billion-a-year for tax breaks for the oil industry. Over 10 years, that's $40 billion that would pay for the transportation bill.

Subsidizing the oil industry in 2012 to drill for oil is like subsidizing fish to swim or birds to fly; you don't have to do it. The consumer is already doing it at the pump. They're being tipped upside down.

So, there's an easy funding mechanism here. It's just taking away the oil company tax breaks.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

That is the only way that we can substitute the money that stays within that sector.

These guys are going to cut back on the pension plans of Federal retirees in order to pay for a transportation bill when we should be keeping the funding stream within this energy sector because that's why we have cars on the road, in order to use this petroleum.

The oil industry right now is having it both ways. They're getting tax breaks from the taxpayers at the same time that they're taking the other pocket of every American as consumers, and they're taking money out of that pocket as well. That's really at the heart of what this debate is all about.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on either side.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

I yield myself 1 minute.

Here is the reality. The Republicans need money to build roads, so they want to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma has already made clear doesn't have the votes to pass in the Senate. The same thing is true for California and Florida and off the coast of Massachusetts and New Jersey. They want to drill there as well, and it's very clear that the votes aren't there in the Senate to accomplish that goal either. As the gentleman from California just said, the likelihood of finding any revenues from oil shale is at least two decades away, so there are no revenues there.

There is another bill, by the way, that's going to come out here on the floor. And in order to find the revenues, do you know where they're going to drill? They're going to drill into the pensions of FBI agents; they're going to drill into the pensions of the researchers for cancer out of the National Institutes of Health; and they're going to drill into the pensions of the Border Patrol agents, who are protecting us right now down on the Mexico border. That's where they're going to find almost all of the money for this bill--in the pensions of those people.

Is that really the way we want to build the roads of our country?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, just 2 weeks ago, President Obama stood right here in this Chamber; and he said that he was going to propose opening up 75 percent of the oil and gas resources off the coast of the United States. That's a great plan. He doesn't want to drill off the California beaches. He doesn't want to drill off Florida beaches or off the New Jersey or Massachusetts beaches. But the rest of it, he's pretty much saying he's open to. But they're not happy with it over here. The President has a real plan and a plan that can be implemented.

What they are doing is they bring out proposals here that try to build real highways with fake oil revenues that are never going to materialize. So rather than working here in the real world, where the real transportation needs of our country are dealt with with real revenues that are coming in, they talk about oil shale which Shell says is at least another 10 years away. Shell Oil, that is, not some shell collector along the beaches.

I yield myself 30 additional seconds.

We are talking Shell Oil who says it's 10 years away. Jim Inhofe in the Senate says the votes aren't there to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So that's zero dollars as well. And the likelihood of them drilling off the coast of California or Florida or Massachusetts for oil is zero. So rather than going through this facade of trying to pretend that real highways can be built with fake oil revenues, we should be taking up the offer of President Obama where he says he'll open up 75 percent of all the drilling possibilities off the coastlines of our country. That is what this debate should be all about.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute at this time.

The Republicans, over the past year, have betrayed their agenda. They have pretty much voted out on the House floor to gut the budget for wind, gut the budget for solar, gut the budget for plug-in hybrid vehicles and, at the same time, kept in the money for the nuclear industry, kept in the tax breaks for the oil industry. So that is pretty much what the debate is all about. It's about the past versus the future.

In our country right now, the American people want to know that we're embracing a future-oriented, technology-oriented, advanced-technology- oriented agenda for our country. That's what all the Republicans keep voting against out here, all of the new technologies that allow us to move on from this fossil-fuel era.

And it would be one thing if they just didn't vote for it, but then they have the temerity to stand up and to say they believe in all of the above. No, they do not. They believe in oil above all because otherwise they would not vote to kill wind and solar out here on the House floor over the last year.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I think it would be helpful for both sides to understand what the time situation is for the conclusion of the debate.

Does the gentleman intend to conclude debate with his next speaker?

In that case, I will yield myself the balance of my time so that I can utter the sentences that will need responding to by the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, let's go back a little bit to this issue of natural gas and what this Republican bill calls for--more drilling for natural gas in our country. Okay, we can look at that.

We support natural gas. We think that natural gas is the best story that's happened in our country in the last 10 years. We love natural gas. Democrats love it. It's half the pollutants of coal. It's domestically produced. We have to make sure that when we're extracting it we don't shoot chemicals down into

the surface so that we pollute the water that our children drink, but we think that we can work through those issues if people of good faith are willing to work together.

Otherwise, it's a fantastic story. Why is that? Because natural gas is not a world market. The world market is for oil. If it's $116 a barrel in China, it's $116 a barrel in the U.S. It's a global market. And that's what allows OPEC to hold us hostage, because they control all of that oil coming out of the Strait of Hormuz. They control all that oil so that they can basically hold the rest of the globe's economy hostage. But natural gas, not true.

Here we've seen a 30 percent increase in our natural gas reserves over the last 5 years. What does that mean? Well, in China it's $16. Japan, $16 per million cubic feet of natural gas. What is it in the United States? It's $2.42. So it's six, seven times cheaper in the United States. That means it is cheaper for every manufacturer, cheaper for every retailer, cheaper for every farmer, cheaper for every consumer.

What are the Democrats saying? We love natural gas; let's keep it here. Let's not be setting up terminals all across our country to export the natural gas across the planet with the Department of Energy saying, if we did that, the price of natural gas in the United States would rise 57 percent. How can that be good for consumers? Isn't that our advantage? Saudi Arabia is the Saudi Arabia of oil. We are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. Why don't we use that to our advantage? Why don't we use that to inoculate ourselves against what Saudi Arabia of oil does to us by jacking the price of oil up and down? Why don't we become independent of them? Why don't we move to all natural gas vehicles? Why don't we use natural gas in the generation of electricity? Why don't we use natural gas in the production of all of our products? And why don't we use natural gas in the homes of our country, in the factories of our country, in the industries of our country at a price that's six times lower than China and Japan, three times lower than Europe?

That's what we are calling for here, an energy strategy that is all- American. And if we can get to that with this debate today, I think that the American people will be the winners.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the purported benefits of the Keystone pipeline have achieved mythic status. We have been told that this pipeline will lower gas prices, even though TransCanada says gas prices will go up. We've been told tens of thousands will be hired to build it, even though only about 5,000 or 6,000 temporary construction jobs will be created.

And in a particularly egregious descent into Fairyland, we have been told that the oil coming through this pipeline would enable us to reduce our dependence on oil imported from unfriendly Middle Eastern or Latin American nations.

Last month, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper even said, when you look at the Iranians threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz, I think this just illustrates how critical it is that supply for the United States be North American.

But under this bill, the Republican bill, there is no guarantee that even a drop of the tar sands oil and fuels will stay here in this country. They keep saying how great it would be if we had a million barrels of oil coming into the United States from Canada. There's no guarantee in this bill, and that's because many of the refineries where the Keystone crude will be sent plan to re-export the refined fuels.

This is the map of what the oil industry plans on doing with this oil. It comes right through the United States, and then it heads off to Asia, South America, over to Europe. And Valero, one of these refineries, says in its investor presentation that it plans to refine the Canadian crude at the same facility it is building in Port Arthur, Texas, an export zone, because doing so leverages its export logistics.

Our amendment will say this oil coming through this pipeline from Canada stays here in the United States and doesn't head off to China. That's what the amendment is all about.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

May I inquire as to how much time is remaining on either side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Again, could we get a review of the time remaining?

Could you inform me as to who has the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining minute.

The gentleman from Nebraska says, What's the problem? All the oil's going to stay in the United States. It's not going to China.

That's what will happen if we don't build the pipeline. So they should vote for the Markey amendment because the Markey amendment could only be guilty of redundancy saying all the oil stays here in America.

So if that's your purpose, that's what the Markey amendment says. We'll hold you to your word when we have the vote.

But here's the real plan. TransCanada puts the dirtiest oil on the planet into the brand new pipeline Republicans are giving it; two, TransCanada sends that oil to the gulf coast where it can make billions more than where it currently sells it in the Midwest; three, refineries in the gulf coast re-export it to other countries at world oil prices and don't pay any taxes to the U.S. for doing so; four, Americans get higher gas prices and no increased energy security; five, TransCanada, Hugo Chavez, and the sheiks of Saudi Arabia laugh all the way to the bank.

Please vote ``yes'' for the Markey-Connolly-Cohen-Welch amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.

I claim the time of the minority.

I thank the Chairman.

I will say that this amendment marginally improves the bill, but it does not change our fundamental opposition to it. But progress on any front is welcomed, even if we cannot make progress on every front.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

We do not oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim the time in the minority.

I thank the Chair very much.

Mr. Chairman, there's no question that the gentleman from Washington State is correct, and a master of parliamentary rules, having stood up there or sat up there hundreds of hours, so he is an absolute correct dissector of language used here of seeking recognition from the Chair.

So I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, if those are the technical words of art that the gentleman would prefer for me to use.

I thank you.

This amendment would require a study to investigate potential economic impacts from a variety of risks that oil development in the Outer Continental Shelf poses to local tourism and fishing economies in Florida.

Well, we actually had a real-world study for 87 days during the BP spill. As we saw in 2010, with the BP oil spill, oil can wreak havoc on a coastal community, meaning a disaster for tourism and fishing, seafood industries. These disasters can and do happen, putting hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars at stake.

It is important for the public to know the risks associated with allowing oil companies to drill off of our coast. But we should be protecting our beaches in Florida and California and New Jersey and Massachusetts, not just requiring a study of how huge a disaster a spill would be for these States.

We should be protecting the lives and the livelihoods of the people of the gulf by taking the lessons of the BP spill and turning them into new laws. But nearly 2 years after the BP spill began, this Congress has not enacted a single new law to improve the safety of offshore drilling. That is indefensible when the BP Commission found that we have a fatally flawed rate of accidents and fatalities in our country. Compared to the rest of the world, ours is four times higher than that in Europe, that is, the fatalities on our oil rigs. So that's the issue.

We have yet to increase the fines because only we can do that here in Congress. Right now, a lot of these oil companies think it's just the equivalent of a parking ticket. You know, if you could pay a parking ticket for a whole day on the main street of any one of the cities in the United States, you'd pay that $1 parking ticket because it would be cheaper than paying 20 bucks to put it in a garage. And that's what we have right now. We have the equivalent of $1 parking tickets that are assessed against oil companies that despoil the ocean, that result in, because of their faulty safety rules, the highest fatality rate in the world in terms of people who work on oil rigs.

At this point, I have completed my statement, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

News From the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

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

For Immediate Release: February 13, 2012.

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

Billion Short Over Ten-Year Period

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

afternoon by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office

(CBO), the Republican Leadership's surface transportation

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

would bankrupt the Highway Trust Fund by 2016 and create a

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

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

bill is not sustainable, and would lead America's

transportation programs down a reckless path toward

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

top Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure

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

bill that creates certainty, but the only thing this bill

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

even before the end of the bill.''

New projections released today by CBO show the balance of

the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund will go broke

by fiscal year 2016 under the Republican Leadership's

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

create a $78 billion funding shortfall in the Highway Trust

Fund, adding greater uncertainty to the future integrity of

surface transportation programs.

``Despite attempts by Republican Leadership to cobble

together a hodgepodge of funding that included giveaways to

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

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

create a huge funding shortfall that will jeopardize the

ability of States and local communities to move forward with

construction projects down the

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

bipartisan fashion to create jobs, Republicans are advancing

a partisan proposal that will destroy 550,000 American jobs

while putting the future of transportation programs in

doubt.''

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

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Democrats'

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

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

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

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

I'm happy to yield to the gentleman.

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

We've passed the amendment deadline----

Well, I appreciate that.

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

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

I thank the gentleman.

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

Statement of Administration Policy

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

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

The Administration strongly opposes the Rules Committee

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

Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental,

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

the Securing Annuities for Federal Employees Act of 2012.

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

the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The

Administration has serious concerns with provisions in the

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

systems less safe, reduce the transportation options

available to America's traveling public, short circuit local

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

labor protections.

This bill would reduce safety throughout the Nation's

transportation system by failing to make necessary

investments in roads and bridges, limiting funding to State

and local governments for highway safety, and repealing

requirements that help ensure the safe handling of hazardous

materials by railroads. The bill also fails to adequately

improve transit safety in accordance with recommendations of

the National Transportation Safety Board and legislation

submitted by the Administration in December 2009.

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

metropolitan areas have sufficient resources to provide

multiple transportation options to help reduce congestion.

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

transit funding from the Highway Trust Fund. The bill

allocates Federal funding for transit in a manner that

undermines local decision making regarding the operation of

local transit systems. This bill also reduces authorized

funding levels for Amtrak and loosens the requirements on

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

the bill inappropriately targets funding towards systems that

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

Finally, while the Administration appreciates that the bill

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

number of discretionary grant programs, missing an

opportunity to promote competition and innovation.

H.R. 7 would also significantly weaken environmental

protections for transportation projects and undermine civic

engagement in the decision-making process. The bill includes

arbitrary timelines that deem an environmental and

substantive review satisfactory regardless of a project's

complexity and impact. The bill also limits judicial recourse

of parties affected by transportation projects in a manner

that undermines well-established judicial principles.

The Administration is committed to promoting safe and

responsible domestic oil and gas production as part of a

broad energy strategy that will protect consumers and reduce

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

bill includes pay-fors that open up pristine natural habitats

not suitable for resource extraction and undermine prudent

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

opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to industrial

development, mandating lease sales in new offshore areas with

no Secretarial discretion for determining which areas are

appropriate and safe for such exploration and development,

and preempting a Bureau of Land Management environmental

impact statement on oil shale extraction. Further, this bill

seeks to circumvent a longstanding process for determining

whether cross-border pipelines are in the national interest

by mandating the permitting of the Keystone XL pipeline

project despite the fact that the pipeline route has yet to

be identified and there is no complete assessment of its

potential impacts, including impacts on health and safety,

the economy, foreign policy, energy security, and the

environment.

The Administration is committed to working on a bipartisan

basis on a surface transportation reauthorization bill that

provides the necessary funding to modernize the Nation's

surface transportation infrastructure,

increase transportation options, maintain and create good

paying jobs, and ensure lasting economic competitiveness.

Because this bill jeopardizes safety, weakens environmental

and labor protections, and fails to make the investments

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

transit systems, the President's senior advisors would

recommend that he veto this legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the Rules for H.R. 7, ``The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012.'' I believe the transportation bill should have been an open rule. This bill is not a comprehensive bill. When Congress spends taxpayer dollars, we are accountable for how it is spent. As written, this measure limits federal government oversight and therefore limits accountability.

I believe, a well-functioning transportation system is critical to the Nation's prosperity. Whether it is by road, aviation, or rail we rely on our transportation system to move people and goods safely. A properly functioning transportation infrastructure will facilitate commerce, attract and retain businesses, and support jobs.

Public transportation benefits the economy in several ways. It helps the right people to get to the right jobs, without wasting otherwise productive hours. It allows employers to tap into various pools of recipients who have no other means of getting to work and it helps customers get to the doors of businesses.

For every dollar we invest in running public transportation systems boosts business sales by another three dollars. A $10 million investment in building public transportation systems creates more than 300 jobs, and the same amount spent on running them creates nearly 600 more.

Part of the challenge of our transportation system is to ensure that everyone is able to benefit. The GAO would study ways to increase access to the underserved and unrepresented communities, as well as, minority communities. This will help to identify areas that we can work to improve. The GAO would further study how to increase the mobility of the disabled.

Public transportation is important to ensure these communities will not only have access to services, businesses, and the community at large, but will also improve their quality of life.

Public involvement needs to encompass the full range of community interests, yet people underserved by transportation often do not participate. We need to find ways to reach the underserved. They not only have greater difficulty getting to jobs, schools, recreation, and shopping than the population at large, but often they are also unaware of transportation proposals that could dramatically change their lives. Many lack experience with public involvement, even though they have important, unspoken issues that should be heard.

Underserved people include those with special cultural, racial, or ethnic characteristics. Cultural differences sometimes hinder full participation in transportation planning and project development.

People with disabilities find access to transportation more difficult and their ability to participate in public involvement efforts more constrained. People with limited resources often lack both access and time to participate. In addition individuals who have not been adequately educated may not be fully aware either of what transportation services are available or of opportunities to help improve them.

These groups are a rich source of ideas that can improve transportation not only for themselves but also for the entire community. Agencies must assume responsibility for reaching out and including them in the decision-making process--which requires strategic thinking and tailoring public involvement efforts to these communities and their needs. Techniques to reach the underserved are grouped here under two headings:

A thorough study of how this bill will impact cost and jobs. As well as a study on how to improve services to the underserved and under- represented will insure that there is accountability for how we are using government resources.

There is much left to be done in the areas of Transportation in our great Nation. I believe this study is a step in the right direction.

Generally, the same transit agencies operate both rail and a bus system, which improves efficiency by ensuring both Systems complement each other.

For example, transit agencies can design bus routes that collect passengers from outlying neighborhoods and deliver them to rail transit stations.

Congress has always allowed transit systems operating both rail and bus lines to receive bus and bus facility grants, recognizing that bus and rail lines work as part of a complete transit network in large metropolitan areas and that federal policy should support local and regional efforts to maximize the efficiency of transit service. H.R. 7 would reverse this longstanding federal policy.

In Houston, TX alone, the City operates 1,300 buses and 7 miles of rail. Denying access to these funds to major metropolitan areas does not make sense. Public transportation benefits the economy in several ways. It helps the right people to get to the right jobs, without wasting otherwise productive hours. It allows employers to tap into various pools of recipients who have no other means of getting to work and it helps customers get to the doors of businesses.

In the case of Houston, the light rail system is vital to increase mobility of Houston, Texas' population which is forecasted to grow by an additional 9.4 million people by 2035, a 38.9 percent increase over the projected 2010 levels. The same can be said for many urban areas across our Nation.

Light rail projects and other transportation investments represent the potential to create thousands of jobs, enhanced mobility, and future economic development for the region.

Public transportation is an investment in the truest sense of the word: An outlay today pays out considerable profit down the road. Nationwide, government invests $15.4 billion in public transportation a year. Public transportation generates upwards of $60 billion in economic benefits. Public transportation boosts state and local tax revenues by at least 4 percent and as much as 16 percent.

Some 30,000 people work directly for the public transportation industry, which creates thousands more jobs indirectly through fields ranging from engineering to construction.

For every dollar we invest in running public transportation systems boosts business sales by another three dollars. A $10 million investment in building public transportation systems creates more than 300 jobs, and the same amount spent on running them creates nearly 600 more.

To be sure, public transportation systems are not cheap to build or run; however, public transportation pays for itself several times over. And if a stronger economy is the destination we seek, public transit is the fastest way to get there. These funds could be used to fix buses, bus shelters, and bus facilities.

With the recent uptick in fuel prices more people are opting to ride the bus. In addition, the bus system also is vital resource for the disable and seniors who rely on these services for transportation. The TE program funds projects that build bus shelters. This would encourage even more people to opt for public transportation. Shelters safeguard passengers against the sun, wind, and rain. Texas has heat waves and many other parts of the country have inclement weather. Funding the building of bus shelters may not be a priority for some, but to the people who are standing waiting for the bus it makes a world of difference.

In addition, bus stops are extremely important for people with disabilities. The inaccessibility of bus stops often represents the weak link in the system and can effectively prevent the use of fixed- route service. This can severely hamper bus ridership by disability community, and thereby limit their mobility. Increasing the accessibility of fixed-route service

under the TE program will decrease paratransit costs.

Since 1983, when the Surface Transportation Assistance Act was signed into law, 2.86 cents in motor fuels taxes has been deposited into the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to provide a dedicated stable source of funding for public transportation programs. H.R. 7 eliminates the Mass Transit Account and dedicates that 2.86 cents to highway programs.

The bill moves transit and other public transportation programs into a new ``Alternative Transportation Fund,'' which would be dependent on appropriations from general revenue. Although the bill makes a one-time transfer of $40 billion into the Alternative Transportation Fund to cover funding for those programs through the life of the bill, there is no guarantee for public transportation funding beyond FY 2016. Such a reality would make it difficult, if not impossible, for transit agencies to develop reliable long-term capital plans, and it would leave the future of the program in doubt.

Public transportation agencies around the country are already struggling to maintain current levels of service and keep the system in a state of good repair. Removing federally guaranteed funding could result in a virtual construction and service freeze, the effects of which would be felt by riders, businesses, contractors, manufacturers and suppliers around the country.

Transit agencies may have to take on more debt in order to finance capital projects, and it could result in increased fares for our constituents.

There is no reason to make such a drastic change in how we finance public transportation. Our amendment would restore the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund and the 2.86 cents dedicated funding stream for public transportation programs. It would eliminate the Alternative Trust Fund, make the Highway Trust Fund whole, and allow it to once again fund both highways and mass transit.

Fast Facts

Highway and Transit Bill (Or Surface Transportation Bill) (H.R. 7)--

Impact on Jobs

Cuts 550,000 American Jobs. Cuts investments in highways by $15.8 billion from current levels. We know that every $1 billion invested in infrastructure creates an estimated 34,800 jobs. Cuts Highway Investments in 45 states & DC. Reduces highway investments for all but 5 states (Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts Nebraska, Wyoming), neglecting the need to fix our bridges and roads.

Buy America Loopholes. Continues loopholes that allow surface transportation jobs to be outsourced overseas, and fails to extend Buy America protections to all Federal surface transportation programs.

Unstable Funding. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the GOP bill would bankrupt the Highway trust fund by 2016--creating a $78 billion shortfall over 10 years and jeopardizing critical transportation projects and American jobs. Boehner argue the bill doesn't create jobs. Speaker John A. Boehner made the unusual argument that spending money on highway projects under the bill would not create jobs. ``We are not making the claim that spending taxpayer money on transportation projects creates jobs.''

Other Transportation Issues

Undermines Safety. Cuts National Highway Traffic Safety Administration grants, allows companies with poor safety records to be exempted from hazardous material safety requirements, delays the deadline for installing new train systems to automatically prevent train collisions and derailments for passenger rail from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2020 and eliminates worker safety for hazmat workers.

Kills Public Transit. Eliminates all of the dedicated funding for public transportation, leaving millions of riders already faced with service cuts and fare increases out in the cold. The bill stops the highway user fee revenues for transit, so that transit will compete with other priorities in the budget. These provisions are opposed by 600 groups--including National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, American Public Transportation Association, League of Conservation Voters, U.S. Steelworkers, U.S. PIRG, and Chamber of Commerce. The bill also fails to provide flexibility to transit systems to use Federal funds to maintain service and transit worker jobs at times of economic crisis. Mandates Privatization in Public Transit & Highways. Incentivizes transit agencies to contract out their bus services, makes private entities eligible to receive Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grants, and mandates private sector participation in local transit planning and for engineering and design services on Federal-aid highway projects.

Jeopardizes Efforts to Make Streets and Roads Safer for Children, Pedestrians, and Bikes. Eliminates efforts to help underwrite local bike paths, bike lanes and pedestrian safety projects, including the Safe Routes to School program. Weakens Environmental, Public Health, and Safety Protections. Includes sweeping changes that undermine local community involvement and environmental protection in transportation project development, such as delegating environmental and safety reviews--including whether they should be conducted--entirely to state highway agencies, imposing arbitrary deadlines for completing or challenging reviews regardless of project size, and waiving environmental reviews for all projects where the Federal share of the costs is less than $10 million or 15 percent of the total project cost regardless of the scope of the project.

Hurts Amtrak. Reduces funding for Amtrak by $308 million, abrogates labor contracts between Amtrak and its food and beverage workers likely costing 2,000 union jobs, and prevents Amtrak from using Federal funds to hire outside counsel to file a lawsuit or defend itself against a passenger rail operator.

Federal Retirement (H.R. 3813)

Cutting Federal Retirement. In an effort to finance the highway bill, the package includes extraneous provisions that take $44 billion out of the pockets of the middle-class--who have already suffered through a pay freeze for 2 years, which contributed approximately $60 billion to deficit reduction. Raising Worker Contributions. Increases the retirement contribution from current federal workers by 1.5 percent. New federal workers would be forced to contribute 3.2 percent more for an annuity that is 40 percent less than existing benefits--with the retirement based on the high five years of salary, instead of the high three years. Changing Benefits Already Earned. Eliminates the annuity supplement payment for federal employees who retire before age 62, throwing into chaos the longstanding retirement plans of middle-class workers who relied on the promise of this benefit and dedicated decades of service to our country. Even the conservative American Enterprise Institute has said, ``Benefits already accrued should not be altered. Those benefits have been promised and earned, and the obligation to pay them should be honored.''

Role of Federal Workers. Federal workers support our troops in the battlefield and provide care upon their return, protect our borders, safeguard our food supply, make sure seniors get their Social Security checks, and help hunt down Osama Bin Laden.

Opposition. Opposed by American Federation of Government Employees, National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, National Treasury Employees Union, National Federation of Federal Employees, National Association of Government Employees, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and Federal Managers Association.

Further, I believe that more should be done for small businesses owned by women and minorities. It is a shame that the numbers of women and minority owned business competing for these contracts has been decreasing every year. We must reinforce our commitment to women and minority owned business.

The Department of Transportation's DBE program aims to increase participation of small businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.

Enhanced oversight is critical to ensuring that the objectives of the DBE program are achieved and federal funds are spent appropriately. But the current program lacks a mechanism to enforce that committed spending for DBEs reflects actual spending.

The October 2011 report by GAO highlights both DOT's need for increased oversight and the lack of clarity in determining whether both committed and actual spending are meeting the goals of the DBE program.

Two things need to be addressed to help the DBE program: increased oversight, and the ability to enforce the DBE program requirements.

The program lacks the necessary ``teeth,'' its requirements are often flaunted to the determent of small business owners.

I believe the Secretary of the Department of Transportation should be required to issue regulations providing for strengthening oversight, enforcement, and compliance with DBE spending requirements.

I have offered a bill, H.R. 3710--Deficit Reduction, Job Creation, and Energy Security Act, that I firmly believe will increase jobs, decrease our deficit, and will be great for our economy.

H.R. 3710 will direct the Secretary of Interior to increase the total lease acreage set forth in the proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas leasing program for 2012 2017 by an additional 10 percent. This 10 percent increase shall be known as the Deficit Reduction Acreage. As such, the Secretary shall lease 20 percent of the Deficit Reduction Acreage each year from 2012 2017. All proceeds from the Deficit Reduction Acreage shall be deposited into the Deficit Reduction Energy Security Fund.

For 15 years after issuance of the first lease or receipt of the first payment coming from the Deficit Reduction Energy Security Fund, all proceeds shall be deposited into an interest bearing account for a period of 2 years. Upon expiration of the 2 year period, these proceeds shall be distributed as follows:

The interest gained during 2 year period shall be placed in the Coastal and Ocean Sustainability and Health Fund (COSH); and

The principle from the Deficit Reduction Energy Security Fund shall be deposited into the US Treasury and applied directly toward Deficit Reduction.

The COSH fund will establish grants for states (Coastal and Disaster Grant Program and a National Grant Program) for addressing coastal and ocean disasters, restoration, protection, and maintenance of coastal areas and oceans, including research and programs in coordination with state and local agencies.

Additionally, the Deficit Reduction and Energy Security Act establishes an Office of Onshore and Offshore Energy Employment and Training, and an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion. CBO has estimated that this amendment is outside of the 10 year budgetary window, so there is no score.

I think we must carefully consider the bill that I propose. And again I reiterate the importance of having an open rule for the Surface Transportation Reauthorization to ensure that all Members of this Body have an opportunity to address their concerns with this bill.

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 material on the bill, H.R. 3408.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3408, which contains the energy provisions in the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act. This is an action plan to create jobs that will vastly expand American energy production, lower gasoline prices, strengthen our national and economic security, and generate new revenue to help pay for infrastructure, and, Mr. Chairman, all without raising taxes or adding to the deficit.

In this year's State of the Union speech, President Obama proclaimed his support for expanding American energy production with an all-of- the-above energy strategy. Sadly, Mr. Chairman, the President's actions while he has been in office have been anything but pro-energy. In fact, his rhetoric--and I don't say this lightly, Mr. Chairman--is 180 degrees from his actions.

Since taking office, this administration has repeatedly blocked U.S. energy production. The offshore drilling moratorium and the Keystone pipeline are just the tip of the iceberg. He has canceled and withdrawn scheduled lease sales, shut off promising areas to new drilling, blocked mining in mineral-rich areas, and issued countless job- destroying regulations.

Mr. Chairman, actions do speak louder than words. The bill we are considering today is an action plan that clearly contrasts President Obama's anti-energy policies with the pro-energy, pro-American jobs policies of Republicans.

While President Obama has closed off new areas for offshore drilling, this bill will open areas known to contain the most oil and natural gas resources in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans. As a result, economic analysis has shown that well over 1 million jobs--long-term jobs, long-term American jobs--can be created.

While President Obama opposes energy production in ANWR, this bill will open less than 3 percent of the total area to responsible and safe drilling. That issue has been around a while, Mr. Chairman. ANWR represents the single greatest resource of onshore area production in the United States. This is one of the reasons that way back in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was still President and the Democrats controlled the Congress, they specifically set aside the north slope of ANWR for energy production.

Safe and responsible energy production in ANWR will protect the environment while creating tens of thousands of jobs and providing upwards of 1\1/2\ million barrels of oil per day. By the way, this is more than the U.S. imports daily from Saudi Arabia.

While the President has delayed leases and withdrawn over a million acres in the Rocky Mountains to oil shale development, this bill will set clear rules and require additional oil shale leases to be issued. According to the government estimates, this region may hold--and, Mr. Chairman, this is a significant number. This region may hold more than 1\1/2\ trillion barrels of oil equivalent. That's six times Saudi Arabia's proven reserves and enough to provide the United States with energy for the next 200 years. And I'm just

talking about oil shale. Robust oil shale development could also create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and that should be self-evident.

Finally, while the President refused to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, this bill would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, to approve it within 30 days. The Keystone XL pipeline will create more than 20,000 American jobs and displace less stable energy imports with millions of barrels of safe and secure North American oil.

Since this President took office, Mr. Chairman, gasoline prices have climbed by 91 percent. Meanwhile, Iran is threatening to close off the Strait of Hormuz, which is responsible for transportation of almost 17 million barrels of oil a day, or 20 percent of all oil traded. Prices will only climb higher if we don't take action now to increase our energy independence and develop our own energy resources.

Today, Mr. Chairman, Republicans are moving forward with a plan to create more jobs and create more American energy.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the former chairman of the Natural Resources Committee and the former chairman of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Inhofe's quote has been thrown around here recently. Let me give another quote by Senator Inhofe:

As I have said, we can make great strides toward increasing

North American energy independence by developing our own

domestic resources. We can do this and support millions of

American jobs, produce affordable energy for consumers, and

reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

He said that in March 2010. I think that's important.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make one other point. There's been an implication here that it has been the policies of this administration that have increased oil and gas supplies; but if you look at the President's own budget that came out this week, there are two aspects of revenue coming in from oil and gas production. You have the lease sales, and you have the royalties. If you look at the President's own budget that came out just 2 days ago, you will see that this year and in the out-years, money coming in from lease sales decreases. That means that the policy of this administration is not more energy production on public lands. It's less.

He has taken advantage of the situation that's going on on State and private lands and is taking credit for it with what's happened in North Dakota. This plan here puts together a solid footing for American energy production on public lands.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

My intent, Mr. Chairman, is to hold that 1\1/2\ minutes at the end of the overall debate in case the gentleman says something that needs to be responded to.

I reserve my remaining 1\1/2\ minutes until the end of the overall debate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is essentially a technical manager's amendment making changes agreed to with the Armed Services Committee in order to ensure that we are fully respecting the needs of our Nation's military.

It adds further protections to those already included through the bill to ensure any production and our Nation's national defense cooperatively coexist in our Nation's offshore areas.

This amendment also includes a slight adjustment to the timing of the leasing of one offshore area off the coast of Alaska. In fact, it moves it back to 2015.

So these have been talked over with the minority. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would totally agree with you. Progress in any way is beneficial. So I appreciate the gentleman's accepting the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, according to the U.S. Census, the State of California's largest import is petroleum. Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the State of California's largest import is petroleum. So I guess it's a good thing that private geologists estimate that over 1.6 billion barrels of American-made energy are ready and waiting to be developed from existing infrastructure in southern California.

What does existing infrastructure mean? Well, there are currently about 23 oil and gas platforms located offshore in southern California which account for about 24 million barrels of oil and 47 billion cubic feet of gas annually. The lease sale proposed in this legislation allows drilling from existing platforms or, to put it in another vernacular, those that are already in place. If we are going to have a serious discussion about offshore drilling, it makes perfect sense to drill not only where there is already drilling going on, but from where the platforms already exist, which is why this bill specifically states: ``no new infrastructure.''

We need to drill where there are known resources, and this California lease sale is a commonsense way to limit the drilling footprint while accessing our resources that are known in southern California. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the State of California is already working with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management on a permit to allow a company to drill from an existing platform in Federal waters into State waters for State resources.

Let me say this: the State of California has entered into the same concept that's embodied in this bill. So let me repeat here one more time. It's Governor Brown's administration that is pursuing drilling off these same platforms closer to the coast.

Additionally, this amendment completely eliminates all coastal States and U.S. territories from receiving fair and equitable income for drilling that would occur potentially off their shores. This means States like Florida and Virginia will not receive any portion of any revenues for drilling that will occur off their coasts under this bill if this amendment were to be adopted.

The underlying bill is a drill-smart plan that directly focuses on those offshore areas where there are known resources. That includes the vast resources of southern California. This amendment would lock away significant resources that belong to the American people. It would keep our country shackled to the foreign powers upon whom we rely for oil and gas imports. It would also hinder our Nation's energy security.

This amendment also ignores the soaring gas prices that American families are facing at the pump right now. Many of those families don't have room in their budget to pay hundreds more dollars just to drive to work or drive their kids to school. And by the way, I might add, Mr. Chairman, I think if there is an epitome of an area in the country that does a lot of driving, it's in California.

We need to get America producing energy again. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and vote for the underlying legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate once again--and this is understanding that people in our great country have different views--I certainly understand what happened in southern California some 40 years ago. Listen, that picture is indelibly in everybody's mind. But nobody can argue there have not been advances in oil exploration in this country, and certainly in the OCS. But as a recognition of that, in this bill we didn't say just go anywhere you want to go in southern California. We said go to the existing platforms where you're drilling and existing infrastructure where there has been drilling.

Now, that seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable way to utilize the resources that we have--by the way, in Federal waters, not in State waters, in Federal waters--so that we can make ourselves less dependent on foreign energy.

The last thing I would say is the State of California is pursuing precisely the same thing that's embodied in this underlying bill, only in State waters.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose my good friend's amendment from southern California.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, just a point. The issue is not claiming time in the minority or majority. The time is in opposition, and with that in mind, I would rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman's amendment will conduct this economic impact study only for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico OCS Planning Area, as defined in the bill. I understand and appreciate the gentleman's interest in protecting the multiple use of the OCS, and I join him in that interest. For decades, tourism, fishing, and oil and gas drilling have been compatible in the Gulf of Mexico, and there's no reason that the new areas opened up under this bill would not operate in the same way.

While I understand the interests of the gentleman to have this study for those areas in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, I wish that he could have expanded the study to jobs that could have been created by new drilling and the support that comes with that activity.

While that's not embodied in the gentleman's amendment, I would only have to think that because you're having the study on that, there may be some residual, and I would look forward to that residual potentially also.

So I thank the gentleman and congratulate him for offering this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Outer Continental Shelf and the resources it contains are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, and therefore it belongs to all of the people of the United States as a whole. These Federal offshore resources are unlike Federal lands and onshore resources outside the borders of the States. Each individual State controls several miles offshore of their coasts, and that varies State by State. But beyond that point, the Federal lands are owned by the Federal Government and its resources.

This bill, underlying legislation, is a drill-smart plan that directly focuses on those offshore areas where there are known resources. Federal assessments estimate that the North Atlantic contains nearly two billion barrels of oil and nearly 18 trillion cubic feet of gas. Using modern technology, it's highly likely that the find could be even more than what is estimated.

This amendment, then, would lock away those resources from the American people who, as I mentioned a moment ago, own them.

Not too long ago, the entire OCS was under moratoria. Offshore drilling in this country was prohibited. When the gas skyrocketed past $4 a gallon in 2008, the American people collectively said, No more. The American people cried out and demanded that Congress act, and we did by lifting the moratoria.

In fact, what the American people found out, Mr. Chairman, at that time is that we had tremendous potential resources here that we weren't utilizing. That's why they cried out and said, Okay. Let's end the several moratoria.

Now, this amendment proposes to reverse the will of the American people, to ignore the high cost of gas at the pump, to ignore that prices are again climbing towards $4 a gallon, and to ignore that our Nation's security is strengthened when we get our energy from here in this Nation and not from hostile foreign nations.

The American people want to increase American energy production and jobs, not stifle American energy production. Let's not forget that we are creating American oil and gas that can be refined and used here. Some of the States that want to shut down production off their coasts are the highest consumers of these fuels that they would have shut down.

Additionally, this amendment completely eliminates all coastal States and U.S. territories from receiving a fair and equitable revenue for drilling that would occur off their shores. That means States like Florida and Virginia and others that would like to participate could not receive a portion of the revenues for drilling that would occur off their States under this bill.

Finally, I would like to say this because we have had a long discussion today in debate, and I've heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, We love natural gas. I'm not sure if it was said with that same cadence, but the message was there.

Listen, Mr. Chairman, nearly 18 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lies off the Atlantic Coast. Can you imagine how much easier it is to get that to market than shipping it from someplace else?

So I would urge rejection of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Yes.

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

Not to my knowledge, no.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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