Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4348) to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, the last long-term surface transportation authorization expired on September 30, '09. We continue to limp along, patching together our Nation's transportation system through short-term extensions that cause uncertainty and create chaos for construction crews and local communities across the country and our State transportation departments.

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported the House Republican leadership's misguided, 5-year surface transportation bill on February 13 of this year. The Rules Committee approved a rule governing its consideration on the floor on February 15. That was 9 weeks ago this day. During that time, the Republican leadership has failed to find the votes among its Members to pass that bill.

Yet, instead of working across party lines as we have traditionally done for decades on transportation policy, the extreme right wing of their party continues to hold the process hostage to their ideological tirade that the Federal Government has no business in supporting a national transportation system.

Three weeks ago, I rose to oppose another extension, the ninth extension since these critical job-creating transportation programs expired in '09, because Republicans refused to move the process forward by bringing up the bipartisan Senate-passed bill but, instead, merely wanted to kick the can down the road once again. Mr. Chairman, we are running out of road.

I oppose the short-term extension because I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what difference the Republican leadership hopes to achieve over the next 12 weeks that they were unable to achieve over the previous 6 weeks. I fail to understand the perverse notion that if we simply fed their dangerous addiction to serial addictions one more time, the skies would magically part and the Republican leadership would miraculously garner enough votes on their side of the aisle to pass H.R. 7. That was the 5-year bill reported by the T&I Committee, something they have failed to do for months.

Last week, we heard the Republican leadership again would be bringing up a short-term extension as a ticket to conference with the Senate. That's the bill that is before us today.

When compared with H.R. 7, which is a fatally flawed bill that would mortgage America's future at subprime rates, a clean extension is a vehicle to keep the ball rolling, provided that the Republican leadership will truly allow us to go to conference with the other body. Unlike H.R. 7, a clean extension does not make shortsighted cuts to surface transportation investments that would destroy jobs and economic growth. These cuts are out. We're talking about funding at current levels.

Under the scheme advanced by the majority, public transit revenue would have been shifted to highways. Transit would have been bailed out with a one-time transfer of $40 billion from the general fund, robbing middle class Americans to pay for the shuffle. Under the clean extension that we're considering today, this misguided shell game is gone, fortunately.

The majority's proposal fails to close all the existing loopholes and Buy America laws. These gaping loopholes are being exploited by foreign competitors, like China, who are stealing American jobs and undermining our ability to create more American jobs and to revive American manufacturing. Under today's bill, locking in these loopholes is out and these provisions can be revisited in a long-term bill.

Under a clean extension, the majority's poison pill to needlessly eliminate Occupational Safety and Health Administration protections for hazmat workers, as was originally in H.R. 7, thankfully, is gone today.

The majority's efforts to subsidize private transit companies and mandate the use of private engineering firms on Federal-aid highway projects is gone in today's bill.

Instead of turning back the clock nearly half a century on America's greatness and the incredible work we have done to grow our Nation, to build a thriving economy, and to lead the global market, we should be working together to develop a bipartisan bill that can pass both bodies and be signed into law.

Taking the other side at their word, that they are serious about moving the process forward--I'm beginning to think that may be a likely scenario--passage of this extension of current law through the end of the fiscal year will allow us to go to conference with the other body on their bipartisan multiyear bill which passed with the support of three-quarters of the Senate. That is 74 votes in that other body.

How many pieces of legislation do you get that many votes on in the other body? A long-term bill will provide the certainty that States need to invest and proceed with their plans that have been long on the books. It will provide the certainty that highway and transit contractors desperately need to give them the confidence to hire that one more worker.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member on our Transit and Highways Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from the State of Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida, the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Railroads, Ms. Corrine Brown.

May I inquire of the time remaining, Mr. Chairman.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York, a valued member of our Committee on Transformation and Infrastructure, Mr. Jerry Nadler.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Steve Cohen.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Time check, please, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time, actually.

We're going to have time during the amendment process to debate the three amendments that have been made in order under the rule. I wish more had been made in order--that's why I voted against the rule--but that decision was the Rules Committee.

The three that will be allowed, of course one has to do with environmental gutting--I mean, streamlining; the other has to do with the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; and then the third has to do with legislation introduced by my colleague from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) dealing with coal waste ash, the latter of which there is support from my side of the aisle for and, indeed, from myself.

The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is a good amendment. I'm glad the Rules Committee made that in order, and I find myself in position to support that as well as the coal ash amendment. At the proper time, I'll speak further on it.

I would like to say that the gentleman from Florida, my chairman, has referred to the inability of our side of the aisle to pass legislation when we were in control of this body. We may have been in control of the other body as well--although, we were not, because the minority over there, as the gentleman knows, has more power than the majority in the other body; and perhaps we did not have the full support of the administration as we would have liked under then-Chairman Jim Oberstar's leadership, and that's unfortunate as well. I don't think any of us would deny that on this side of the aisle.

The fact of the matter is, today, with the other body being even more divided than it was in previous leadership regimes, they have passed a bipartisan bill. Half of the Republican Members of the other body supported their bipartisan transportation bill. Both the chairlady and the ranking member of the relevant committee joined together, put their names on a piece of legislation, put some reforms in it that are good reforms, provided a 2-year bill, paid for, and I believe is a bill that we should have been considering today and that I had made the request to the Rules Committee yesterday to consider, but they did not grant my wishes, so we are where we are today.

We have an additional 90-day extension that we will be asked to vote on later today. That's a good thing, I guess, if we get to a conference. And this is the final point that I want to make is that conference must be held sooner rather than later. It must be held as soon as possible. We're ready to go to conference later today if the conferees were to be announced. We already have the Senate bill. So from our side of the aisle, we're ready to go to conference today, right now.

I would urge the majority in this body to call that conference as soon as possible. Our workers cannot wait any longer. Our small businesses cannot wait any longer. Our road contractors cannot wait any longer.

This is the time of the year when road contracts are let, as I'm sure my distinguished chairman and every Member of this body knows full well. This is the time of the year, the springtime of the year when those decisions have to be made, when our small businesses, when our road contractors need to let their employees and prospective employees know--today they need to let them know whether or not they're going to have a job, not 90 days from now, not 90 plus 90 days from now, but today.

So that's why I would urge that this conference committee meet as quickly as possible. I call upon the leadership of this body to call a conference committee. Our workers are ready. Our contractors are ready. Contracts are ready to be let.

We need those American jobs now, and I would hope that Chairman Mica would join me in a bipartisan plea to assign conferees as expeditiously as possible and to call a conference even quicker, if that's possible.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Is the gentleman from Florida ready to close?

I know how much time I have left, I think, but just tell me, Mr. Chairman.

Let me, again, repeat what I said a moment ago. I'm sure the chairman heard me. And I'm asking, once again, that we go to conference as quickly as possible. I gave the reasons in my concluding speech why that is necessary for the sake of jobs for Americans.

I would hope that, in one last-ditch effort, one last-ditch effort to plead for bipartisanship in this body, as the other body has already demonstrated and proved, that perhaps the chairman would join me, his ranking member, in a letter to the Speaker urging that we go to conference as quickly as possible.

The legislative process has been explained to me, and when you cut through it all, we could go to conference as early as tonight on this legislation. So I would ask the chairman, once again, if he would join me in that last bipartisan plea I make for such a joint pleading with the Speaker to go to conference.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

As we are all anxiously awaiting the chairman to respond with his time, I yield back the balance of my time so that we all can wait with bated breath to hear the distinguished chairman's response to our invitation.

Mr. Chairman, although not in opposition, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond) and commend him for all his hard work on this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, has their time expired?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute of my final 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Ways and Means committee, Mr. Richard Neal.

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

As a Representative of the great seafaring State of West Virginia, I rise in support of the gentleman's legislation as well.

Really, ports are important to my State. We export a great deal of coal out of my district to the Port of Norfolk. The northern part of West Virginia's coal goes to the Port of Baltimore, so harbors and ports are very important to West Virginia and for the movement of our coal from the State to its world customers.

I want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), as well, for the tremendous work he has done on this legislation. For far too long, we have been collecting far more resources in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund than we have transferred to the Corps of Engineers for their O&M activities, to the point where in the current fiscal year, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is expected to have an unexpended balance of over $8 billion by the end of the year.

I support the gentleman's efforts to use these funds for maintenance dredging rather than to cover the general expenditures of the U.S. Treasury. However, in my view, this amendment does not go far enough because it strips out any enforcement mechanism should this language be ignored.

In addition, the language also ignores concerns expressed by our committee colleague, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Mr. Bishop of New York, on ensuring an equitable distribution of trust fund dollars between our Nation's large, midsize, and small commercial harbors.

I do look forward to working on these critical issues as we continue our discussion on a long-term surface transportation bill in conference, which we call for today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. While I strongly support the efficient review of projects to ensure timely project delivery, I believe it is possible to balance these needs with adequate opportunity for public input. Unfortunately, the provisions in the Ribble amendment are far beyond balanced and would severely limit public input into surface transportation decisions.

In effect, the amendment places a roadblock on public participation in reviewing transportation projects by limiting and, in certain cases, outright waiving NEPA. That goes far beyond streamlining. Locking the public out of the decisionmaking process is steamrolling our constituents and local governments.

The most galling aspect of this amendment is that it would completely exempt any and all highway projects where the Federal share of the costs is less than $10 million or 15 percent of project costs from the requirements to provide public participation and an analysis of alternatives in the project decisionmaking process.

Proponents of the amendment argue that NEPA and other laws are causing years of project delays. That's simply

not true. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the vast majority of projects delivered both by the Federal Highway Administration and the FTA--96 percent, to be exact--already go through minimal NEPA review, meaning that all NEPA compliance is completed within 2\1/4\ months to 6 months. Ironically, this amendment could increase those delays by excluding the public from participation in the project review process and increasing the likelihood of public opposition to a project, leading to greater delays in project delivery.

Now, many of us know the public, if they're locked out of a decisionmaking project or review process where they feel they have a legitimate right to participate, where are they going to go? They're going to go to the courts and sue. Does the gentleman think that the judicial process, when you have to face lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, is going to be streamlining the process? I think not. We're looking at a longer process there than any environmental review would ever entail.

Again, while I strongly support efficient review and sufficient review of projects to ensure timely project delivery, this amendment goes too far. It undermines public participation in local decisions and could potentially create greater problems of project delivery. And I would urge the defeat of the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition; although, I am in support of the amendment.

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

I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, back in 1980, former Representative Tom Bevill of Alabama and I inserted an amendment into the Solid Waste Disposal Act requiring EPA to study and then determine how to regulate coal ash. That was in 1980. Today, 32 years later, EPA has not done so in a final manner, so I believe it is completely appropriate to place this authority within the hands of the State as the pending amendment by the gentleman from West Virginia would clearly do.

In the wake of the 2008 coal waste disaster at a TVA facility, I introduced legislation to strengthen the regulation of coal ash impoundments. The pending legislation is not perfect in these respects. In fact, there are some flaws which need to be worked out further. I also believe there are more appropriate ways to gain enactment of the provisions of H.R. 2273 which this amendment reflects. In fact, we should all note that the bill has already passed the House and been sent to the other body where Senators are actually working to achieve a bipartisan agreement.

I will, however, vote for this amendment because I have long supported many of the concepts embodied in it, including active oversight of coal ash impoundments and the promotion of the beneficial reuse of coal ash for activities like road building, which my colleague from West Virginia has already well demonstrated.

So as I conclude, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I join in thanking my colleague from West Virginia for bringing it to us today. And I praise him for his consistency because he came to me early on in our T&I markup process to have this introduced in committee.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4348.

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

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, today we bring up the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012. This is the second part of an extension that we passed previously. Just before the Congress recessed and went into the Easter work period and holiday, the House did pass a 90-day extension, and that extension expires on June 30, 2012. The extension before us today is an additional 90-day extension. The purpose of this extension is so that we can hopefully bring about resolution and conference legislation to complete our transportation bill.

Now, the previous extension was the ninth extension, and the Democrats--the other side of the aisle--were forced to pass a sixth extension, so I'm hoping that this will be our last extension and that it will also provide us a vehicle to conclude this important work that so many jobs across this country are relying on. The building of our Nation's infrastructure is tied to this work and to the completion of this important task.

This is a fairly clean extension. There are a couple of provisions in here, I think, that will provide increased energy for the country; and if anyone has not felt the pain at the pump, all they need to do is go to a local gas station. I saw today that the lowest-cost gas in a local station not a couple blocks from here was $4.45 a gallon. This particularly hurts the working men and women of America and those on fixed or limited incomes. I think the provision that we have here is an excellent provision, and I'll talk a little bit more about this.

This again is a vehicle that can deliver us to the completion of the important work. This extension has levels of funding that are consistent with the transportation appropriations bill which was signed by the President in November. Then we'll consider, I believe, three amendments that have been made in order by the Rules Committee. Let me talk about them again very briefly.

First, the Keystone pipeline provision. This administration is still meandering not only on transportation legislation but also on energy legislation, and it has not found its way, unfortunately, for the American people.

But this bill can provide us reliable sources of energy. We're talking about a pipeline and a source from a good ally and neighbor in the North American continent. We're not talking about relying on Venezuela, the Middle East, or Nigeria, where we get a lot of our supplies for energy today. So it can provide again some stability, some reduction in price for the consumer, particularly when they're so hard hit at this time. We will have more to talk about with it.

In regard to the Keystone pipeline, this pipeline has been studied to death. This administration, for over 3 years, has delayed approval. The President has approved a small part in one section of the country--or at least he says he would. You can't build a pipeline that can actually deliver energy at a lower cost in reliable fuel in a piecemeal fashion. The Keystone pipeline has been studied for about 3\1/2\ years now, while they built the entire Alaska pipeline in that period of time. So the time for studying, for delay, and for not acting on reducing energy costs and increasing supply has ended.

Additionally, we have a couple of other provisions in here which I'm supportive of. One is the RESTORE Act, which creates the Gulf Restoration Trust Fund, and that provides for a fair and equitable manner for division of the penalties collected by those responsible for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. I think that that is a provision that can also help a lot of our Gulf States that were hard hit and impacted by that disaster.

Finally, I think another amendment that I think is very laudatory is one by Mr. Ribble that has been made in order, and that carries, from H.R. 7, a lot of the streamlining provisions that we think are so important to getting projects done.

President Obama promised us infrastructure when they sold a $787 billion so-called stimulus package. Mr. Oberstar and I came back here. At the time, they were looking at a $250 to $300 billion stimulus bill, of which 50 percent would be, in fact, infrastructure. As it turned out, it was 6 or 7 percent. That's some $63 billion.

Last October, there was still 35 percent of the $63 billion for infrastructure stuck in the Treasury in Washington, D.C., 2\1/2\ years after we passed the stimulus. So you can pass all the transportation bills you want, and if you can't deliver the project and cut the red tape and paperwork that Washington thrives on, then you can't get anything done. That provision is so important in moving transportation legislation forward that can make a difference in getting projects done.

In the hearings that we did across the country, starting in Mr. Rahall's district--the Democrat leader of the committee--in Beckley, West Virginia, we heard at every single hearing all the way to the west coast when we did a bipartisan, unprecedented bicameral with Senator Boxer hearing on that coast, every single hearing, almost without question, most of the witnesses all said that we needed to speed up the projects.

``Shovel ready'' has become a national joke, and we've got to end that sad joke that doesn't allow us to go forward. I think the Ribble amendment will do that.

With that, I think we have a vehicle that we can get to conference and work in a bipartisan and bicameral manner to get the job done.

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, April 17, 2012.

Hon. John Mica,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastrcture,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Mica, I am writing concerning H.R. 4348, the

``Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, Part II,''

which is scheduled for floor consideration this week.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has

jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Code. Subtitle D of

Title I of this bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

by extending the current Highway Trust Fund expenditure

authority and the associated Federal excise taxes to

September 30, 2012. However, in order to expedite this

legislation for floor consideration, the Committee will forgo

action on this bill. This is being done with the

understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the

Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its

jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 4348, and would ask

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

included in the Congressional Record during floor

consideration.

Sincerely,

Dave Camp,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the chair of the Highway Subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska, who's the leader and one of the authors of the Keystone provisions of this legislation, Mr. Terry.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Representative, the former chair of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Mr. Burton from Indiana.

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Let me just say I heard repeated here some things about what the Secretary said, and he did not have favorable comments about H.R. 7. So we've tried to bring something forward that would bring us to passing a bill and get people to work and get this resolved. And then today the Secretary said that the Congress would not pass a multiyear bill, instead of saying he'd work with us and be a leader to do that.

Then the Secretary went on to say, look what they've loaded it up with--speaking about this bill today--Keystone, coal ash, none of it has anything to do with transportation.

Well, first of all, I guess it's difficult for the Secretary to understand that energy costs and the pain at the pump are killing the consumer and impacting dramatically the American people. Keystone does have something to do with that. I guess if you have a chauffeur pick you up in the morning and you're not pumping the gas yourself and taking the money out of your pocket, you wouldn't understand the relevance of Keystone.

And then coal ash, which was just referred to here by the gentleman, it makes our surface more durable and we save money----

I will not yield, and I don't like being interrupted, especially when I have a good point.

Coal ash, to continue, although being interrupted, makes the surface more durable. It's important that we get value when we're putting money into roads and pavement. So it's a very important provision that saves costs and gets us more for our money.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute at this time.

I know there's a lot of disappointment on the other side of the aisle because this extension and this ability to get the bill done contains no earmarks, no tax increases, and no programs of bigger government, so I know they're disappointed in that regard.

The other thing, too, that folks should remember is we've done everything we can in a bipartisan way to move this process forward. I remember working with Mr. Oberstar, the former chairman, when the current Secretary and the President came in and said they weren't going to do a 6-year bill when they had all the votes, huge majorities, and they could have put people to work and gotten this done. Instead, they gave us six extensions. So here we are trying to get the job done.

As the Cable Guy says, and my son reminds me, Dad, we're gonna git-r- done. And we're going to get her done one way or the other.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), one of the leaders for responsible government.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), one of the leaders of the Energy and Commerce Committee and helper on this legislation.

I'm ready to close.

And I would tell the gentleman--am I on the gentleman's time, Mr. Chairman?

Okay. Then I would tell the gentleman that I plan to respond in not taking his time, but in taking my time to the request from the distinguished ranking member from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and I will have an answer in response to his specific question dealing with whether or not I would sign the letter asking for an expeditious approval and consideration of appointment of conferees and going to conference in an expedited manner.

Might I inquire as to what time is remaining?

In answering with bated breath, I yield myself the balance of my time.

First of all, let me say on a serious basis that I've tried to have the best working relationship possible with Mr. Rahall, the Democrat leader of the Transportation Committee. He and I were respectively chosen to lead the committee, and I've tried to do my best in the last year plus several months to work with him in meeting our responsibilities.

We have done some important things. We passed a 5-year stalled FAA bill, and we did it without tax increases, without earmarks, and with a good plan for the future that will put people to work in an area, the aviation industry, that accounts for 10 percent of our economic activity in the country.

Let me say in regard to the former chair of, I believe, the Highway Subcommittee, Mr. DeFazio, that he was the ranking member on 9/11 when the good Lord put us both with the responsibility of trying to get the Nation's aviation system going after the horrendous attack by terrorists on our country and on the aviation system, and we did that together.

I came to this position after 18 years, after my predecessor, Mr. Oberstar, who I enjoyed so much working with, who was the distinguished leader from the other side. I learned quite a bit from Mr. Oberstar and others, from Mr. Shuster who came before me. There was a whole host of great leaders in the committee--Mr. Mineta, my first chair. I tried to learn from all of them and not make mistakes but to do the best thing for the committee, not for my self-interests or my party's interests, but in the interest of the American people, because that's what we're sent here for is to help the American people.

We had a crisis after 9/11. We came together. We have a crisis now. We have millions of Americans who don't have jobs, who don't have work. I supported the bill. I think Mr. Oberstar waited 32 years to become chairman. I was elected after 18 years by my colleagues. He had his bill pretty much together. I didn't have a bill.

I first went to Mr. Rahall's district, who is the ranking member, and held the first hearing on this legislation in Beckley, West Virginia, which I'd never been to, and I wouldn't mind going back. Everybody there was nice to me and committed then. We went across the country and did a record number of hearings--as I said, bipartisan, bicameral with Mrs. Boxer, who I hope to complete this legislation with and with other leaders and workers, because here you can't do it yourself. You really can't. You might think you can, but you can't.

So I have taken everybody's good ideas, and please don't say I wasn't bipartisan. We took every amendment, 100 Democrat amendments. I don't know anyone who has done that. We sat there until 3 o'clock in the morning--it was an 18-hour markup--and we passed 20-some of their amendments. Shoot, this is difficult. I don't have earmarks like the previous chairman had. The last bill had 6,300 earmarks. Yes, you can get the bill done quickly, but even then it took them 2 years. I've been here for--what?--14 months leading the committee, and today, we will take this to conference.

To answer your question, not only will I sign the letter; I will draft the letter asking to be expeditious in going to conference and in the appointment of conferees. In addition, I'll ask our chair, Mr. Duncan, to sign that letter--I hope you will join me, and I thank you for offering that--so we can get the people's work done.

I look back and I see the missed opportunities, one when Mr. LaHood came in to Mr. Oberstar and me and turned down a 6-year bill that we had planned. I didn't like everything Mr. Oberstar proposed. In fact, I probably would have had to have held my nose and voted for it; but I told him, in the interest of the country and the American people, we needed to move forward, and I was supportive of getting the bill to conference so we could work out the details. I wasn't afforded all that opportunity in this process, and I'm saddened a bit about that because I have tried to work in good faith.

Now the American people are calling on us to stop the bickering, to stop the baloney, to get back to work. The American people are hurting.

Then again, there is the pain at the pump. I've seen people, when I've been home, taking out a few dollars at a time in trying to pay that gas bill, and sometimes I've seen people go out and buy $5 worth of gas. It breaks my heart that they can barely make it back and forth. I saw a waitress who was telling me how difficult it was for her to get to work because she couldn't afford it. But that's why they sent us here--to get this job done, and we need to get this job done.

So I think, on behalf of the American people, we need to continue the process. We've been down several roads, and some of those had some bumps and some of them had some dead ends, but let's hope that this has a path to lower energy costs and that this has a path to building this country's infrastructure, which is so important for what the business of this country is. The business of this country is business. It wasn't Big Government. So we can do it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I will be very brief.

The gentleman said that I had said before we had smoke and mirrors, and once again we have smoke and mirrors. Every opportunity was given to the other side. My committee sat for some 18 hours. They never brought this issue up. We heard over 100 Democrat amendments. It was not brought up in one of the single 200 amendments proposed to the committee.

What this is is an obstruction to getting people working, to getting our infrastructure for this country built. We need to vote down this motion to recommit and let's move forward in getting America building its infrastructure and getting people to work and affordable energy to people that can't even afford to fill up their gas tank today. I've had it with these delays.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Well, it appears that the House has finally found the path out of dysfunction junction. We have been there for too long. We need a long- term, as long a term as possible, transportation bill as soon as possible.

Now, this extension is for 180 days. We can't wait for 180 days to come to agreement with the Senate. We need to go to an expedited conference as soon as possible. We have been gathering data from the individual States since the last 90-day extension 3 weeks ago. The State of North Carolina has canceled $1.2 billion worth of projects, 40,000 jobs, this year.

Other States are reporting in, none quite so drastic, but the grand total is going to be probably close to 100,000 jobs foregone because of the uncertainty created by these 90-day extensions. It's time to put an end to 90-day extensions. This should be the last one, and we should proceed immediately to conference and begin to work through our differences with the Senate.

Even H.R. 7, which the Republicans couldn't get out of their own conference, they could not get agreement between those 50 or 60 who believe their national transportation policy should be set individually by the 50 States. Wow, what does that mean? And/or transit should be thrown under the bus, or out of the bus, with the other members of the conference saying, wait a minute, that's totally unacceptable to us. They couldn't get the bill out.

But even the fact that they couldn't get the bill out, there's much overlap and agreement between many provisions in H.R. 7 and what the Senate has done. I believe we could conference those areas in disagreement quite promptly.

As the ranking member said, this no longer ends Safe Routes to Schools, something which I opposed in H.R. 7, and other cycling and alternate modes of transportation. It doesn't throw transit out the window or off the bridge, but transit would be in play between the House and the Senate.

During the last stage or authorization of SAFETEA-LU, we had an incredible fight in conference. It wasn't between Democrats and Republicans; it was between the House and the Senate. We fought for a number of weeks over the split between transit and highways and came to a good accommodation, I believe. And hopefully we'll end up close to that in this.

But the Senate bill, which we tried to force a vote on, and had we put that in place 3 weeks ago, instead of the 90-day extension, we wouldn't have lost or been in the process of losing all those contracts and jobs now at the beginning of the construction season. That's about 100,000 jobs potentially lost with more temporary extensions. But we would, instead, have seen another 500,000 jobs, which is the predicted result of the stability of 2 years of funding with the Senate bill.

So, you know, I will support this iteration because I am anxious to get to conference, I am anxious to get agreement. I believe we should get it done before the middle of May so that States can capture this construction season, and we can put a few hundred thousand people who desperately want jobs back to work and those who supply them back to work.

Finally, on the issue of excessive fuel prices, there is only one thing we can do immediately. I mean, the XL pipeline, first off, they say they are going to export it after they refine it. We are exporting gasoline from the United States of America today.

We have prices being set in a world market, and it's being set by speculators on Wall Street. If we just clamp down on the speculation on Wall Street, the head of ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, the St. Louis Federal Reserve, and prominent economists say we could save consumers 60 to 70 cents a gallon tomorrow if we stopped the rip-offs by the people on Wall Street, and the excessive speculation by the people on Wall Street, something that's only been allowed for about a decade.

It didn't used to be allowed for them to control our energy future. So if you want to do something real, that should be part of this bill. XL pipeline can do nothing to help people get lower gas prices.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would yield to the chairman of the committee in the hope that he would respond to that because I think it's a reasonable request.

Reclaiming my time, I'm afraid I didn't quite catch that. If the gentleman is saying that he wants to originate the letters making those points, I will tell him right now I would sign it, and I believe the gentleman from West Virginia would sign it. If that's the problem that he was insinuating that we in the minority would initiate the letter, the point is we would love to have the chairman write the letter and be willing to sign it.

My understanding of the procedures that have been set forth already in the Senate is when we send this bill to the Senate, and it could be there within a couple of hours, that Leaders McConnell and Reid must sit down and agree that it meets their preconditions to go to conference. If it does, then the Senate goes automatically to conference. They don't have to go through all their usual procedures, and then they would send a request for conference back to us, which could be here tonight or early tomorrow morning, and we could appoint conferees tomorrow, and we could begin negotiating the bill.

I'm willing to clear my weekend schedule. I have things scheduled. I'm willing to clear my weekend schedule. I hope to be a conferee on our side of the aisle to go to conference because we really need to get the certainty the States need.

Every day States are announcing delays and cancellations of projects for this construction season which, for those of us who live in the northern part of the country, not down in Florida, means they don't get done this year. If they can't commit to a project by the end of May, except for some very minor projects, it won't get done this year.

We need those jobs. We need those projects. Instead of adding jobs and projects today, because of the temporary nature of these two extensions, States are notifying DOT that they are going to delay or cancel projects. And again, in the case of North Carolina, $1.2 billion worth of projects, 41,000 jobs lost. In my State, a couple of thousand jobs lost, and we have high unemployment. All across the country, it probably adds up to 100,000 jobs that will be foregone this construction season if we don't get a longer-term bill done by mid- to late May.

I think it's entirely possible and, as I said, on this side of the aisle we want to expedite going to conference. That's the reason we will support this bill, despite some of its faults, because the majority has shown a willingness to sit down seriously and get this done, but

we can't delay. We have to move forward with all dispatch.

Let's start tomorrow. Let's work through the weekend. Let's work through the next break. We've already had 10 or 12 or 15 breaks this year. Let's work through the next break. I'll cancel my schedule for that break, too, and get this bill done for the American people for our transportation system by mid-May.

I thank the gentleman.

I've long supported changing the law so that the funds collected for harbor maintenance are spent on harbor maintenance. They're spent all across the country on a whole range of things, except harbor maintenance. I have jetties failing in Coos Bay, Oregon; a jetty failing at the mouth of the Columbia River. I have ports that are shoaling in Port Orford or Florence that the Corps says they can't afford dredging. I don't blame the Corps because they've been shorted in the budget process. They

have a $40 billion backlog of critical projects.

This will help them focus their energies on some other critical projects by giving them adequate funds to do the dredging, to rebuild the jetties, and to do the other work to maintain our locks and channels that they need to do.

This is long overdue, and I strongly support the amendment.

I thank the gentleman.

I am going to ask the gentleman from Wisconsin a question about his amendment.

You might remember in committee that I managed to convince the majority to strip a provision in the underlying bill that would have waived all laws at the discretion of the President of the United States to do projects of national competitiveness.

I know. You don't have that and I appreciate that; but in your amendment, from the original bill, you took this language:

The Secretary shall treat an activity carried out under

title 23, United States Code, or project within a right-of-

way as a class of action categorically excluded from the

requirements relating to environmental assessments or

environmental impact statements.

That means all Federal highway projects would be exempt from any environmental review. Don't you think that's a little over the top? That's a little more than streamlining it, and that's not just within existing rights-of-way. That is, acquire a new right-of-way, build an eight-lane road and no environmental review? Don't you think, I mean, that might be a little bit over the edge?

No, it says ``or.'' ``Or a project within a right-of- way.'' You have at least a drafting problem here, if not an intentional problem.

This exempts any project under title 23, which means a brand new highway 8, 12, 15 lanes wide, newly acquired right-of-way, with no environmental review.

I will yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I don't have confidence in a lot of people in a lot of States and I do think the American people deserve at least some protection. Now, I can understand the impatience with some of the bureaucracy--I share it--particularly when it comes to transit projects and other things and giving States authority, like we've done to California.

But for the gentleman to say that we'll just let the States decide whether or not there will be any environmental review of a major new highway project is extraordinary to me--using Federal money. If they want to use the State money and they want to say there are no laws that apply and we're just going to build this Chinese method of here comes the bulldozer, get out of the way, get out of your house, here it comes, fine. States are like that. They do it with their own money, and people of that State can deal with it. But for the Federal Government to say, We wash our hands of this and you can do anything you want with Federal taxpayer dollars, constructing major new highways with no review, I think that's a little over the top.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 619 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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

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

House Resolution 619 provides for a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4348, a bill which extends the Federal highway, transit, and highway safety programs through the end of fiscal year 2012 and establishes program funding levels consistent with the fiscal year 2012 appropriated levels. The highway trust fund taxes and expenditure authority are also extended through fiscal year 2012. The Federal surface transportation programs and highway trust fund taxes and expenditure authority are currently authorized through June 30, 2012.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill today extends the authority of the government to fund highway programs through the end of this fiscal year.

In addition, the bill provides for the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline by giving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 30 days to approve the Keystone XL pipeline expansion, and also includes language contained in H.R. 3096, the Resources and Ecosystem Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States, or RESTORE, Act which would establish the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund and dedicate 80 percent of penalties paid by the responsible parties in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to the restoration of the gulf coast ecosystem and economy.

Mr. Speaker, our constituents are feeling great real pains at the pump, and their pains are being ignored by the President and his liberal extremist enablers in Congress.

Recent polls indicate that 63 percent of Americans say increases in gas prices have caused financial hardship for their families. My Democratic colleagues may be well served to ignore their Occupy Wall Street handlers for a moment and recognize that, as gas prices increase, it costs more to transport food and other essential goods and services, which lowers the standard of living for all Americans.

The simple truth is that when President Obama was sworn into office in January 2009, the price of a gallon of gasoline was $1.84. Today, in many parts of our country, it's over $5 a gallon. My guess is this is not the kind of change that most Americans were expecting or wanted when President Obama promised change.

Maybe since the President doesn't fill up his own gas tank, he does not fully appreciate this reality.

These steeply rising gas prices have major ripple effects. Higher energy costs destroy jobs and leave families with less money to meet their basic needs.

One of the most well-known precepts of economics is the principle of supply and demand, and the price of gasoline is not immune to this basic principle. That's why we need to increase the supply of all American energy sources to get us to American energy independence.

Republicans have crafted and passed legislation that would not only lower the price of gas, but create jobs at the same time. Unfortunately, the liberal Democrat-controlled Senate stubbornly refuses to move these bills through the process.

It's better to produce our own American energy and create American jobs rather than rely on unstable, hostile foreign regimes for critical energy resources.

It seems that Democrats subscribe to the wisdom of President Obama's Energy Secretary who proclaimed that ``we somehow have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.''

Mr. Speaker, in Italy gas prices exceed $9 per gallon. The Obama energy policy consists of ignoring the needs of Americans and pleasing his liberal base, rather than working for all Americans.

Congressional Democrats persist in their claim that increasing domestic oil and natural gas production will not immediately decrease the price of gasoline. For decades, this argument has been used as an excuse to continue stalling. We can no longer delay and

deny access to our own American resources.

Another false claim of congressional liberals is that the oil producers are somehow responsible for the high price of gasoline, even though official government investigations have shown time and again no wrongdoing. But they insist on tying their fundamental disdain for capitalism into the claim that denying fair tax treatment to domestic energy producers that is provided to every other industry will somehow lower gas prices.

Well, Mr. Speaker, increasing taxes on American energy producers will only make the price of gasoline higher for families and job creators because affected companies simply pass their increased costs on to customers in order to stay in business.

In what universe does making something more expensive to produce make it cheaper to sell?

The simple truth is that domestic energy producers are essential to the U.S. economy, job creation, energy security, and deficit reduction. It supports more than 9 million jobs and adds more than $1 trillion to the U.S. economy each year.

Today, the energy industry pays over $86 million a day in income taxes, royalties, bonuses, and rents to the Federal Government. Between 1996 and 2007, the industry invested more than $1.2 trillion in a range of long-term energy initiatives, compared to net income or earnings of $974 billion.

The reality is that failure to produce domestic energy supplies, along with global turmoil and competition for supplies with developing nations, has driven up energy prices and boosted foreign energy companies that do not pay American taxes, nor comply with American environmental standards.

House Republicans are now bringing forward yet another bill that will have the dual impact of lowering gas prices while supporting job creation. Republicans remain committed to solutions that promote America's energy independence, lower gas prices, and help create American jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think I should remind my colleague from Colorado that the Democrats were in charge of both Houses of the Congress and had the Presidency when the authorization for this bill first expired, and I believe they reauthorized it several times and weren't able to get a bill passed.

I would now like to yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

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

Again, I want to point out to my colleague from Vermont that it was under Democrats that this authorization expired. They renewed the authorization six times while they were in control of both Houses of Congress and had the Presidency, so they haven't done the job they should have done.

I also want to point out that the President has the tools he needs through agencies already to do the investigations that need to be done; they have done them over and over again and they've found no fault on the part of ``speculators'' or the oil companies.

All the President and his allies on the other side of the aisle are doing, Mr. Speaker, is trying to distract people from their failed economic policies. Every policy that they have instituted has failed miserably, brought us record unemployment, and brought record gas prices. He blames, blames, blames other people, takes no responsibility, refuses to be held accountable for anything that this administration has done, that the Democrats, when they were in charge of the Congress for 4 years, did which created this situation.

I think it's time that they quit casting blame and look for ways to solve problems, like encouraging the President to approve the Keystone pipeline and increasing the real supply, not 17 hours' worth of fuel from the strategic oil reserve.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to my colleague from Massachusetts that if we raise taxes on the oil companies, surely that will be passed along to consumers.

When I'm finished. I believe the gentleman from Colorado probably has adequate time.

As my colleague knows, yesterday, in the Rules Committee, people on his side of the aisle talked about tax breaks and giveaways, and that, again, implies that all the money that hardworking taxpayers earn is government money, and that is not the way it is. That attitude about giving away money from the Federal Government implies that the money belongs to the government.

I would also like to point out to my colleague that the subsidies he talks about are not subsidies. They are the tax deductions, tax ``breaks'' that every manufacturer gets, not just the oil companies. To talk about corporate welfare is a bit disingenuous.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that our colleagues across the aisle, as well as President Obama, the answer to everything is to raise taxes, but they never can explain how raising taxes would lower costs, especially on gasoline. To me, that shows how disconnected they are from economic reality.

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

We have no remaining speakers, and I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 4348, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, Part

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont, my former colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Welch.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that the House votes on H.R. 14, a bill brought forth by Representative Tim Bishop and Representative Corrine Brown containing the text of the Senate transportation bill, S. 1813, which passed the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 74 22.

To discuss our amendment to the rule, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 5 minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) to respond to the gentlelady.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

May I inquire of the gentlelady if she has any remaining speakers?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Again, there were several amendments offered in Rules Committee to make this bill better. To help reduce the budget deficit, my colleague, Mr. McGovern, introduced an amendment ending $40 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry. As the gentlelady said, that has nothing to do with the price of gas. Getting rid of subsidies to oil companies doesn't make gas more affordable. But the question is: Why are we giving money to oil and gas companies at a time when we have a national deficit? Why don't they pay taxes like every other company?

I was a small businessman before I got here, and the companies that I was involved with had to pay taxes. What I don't understand is why economically a tax subsidy is any different than an expenditure subsidy. And economists across the ideological spectrum would agree corporate welfare is a government giveaway, whether it appears on the tax line or the expenditure line.

Specifically, with regard to any tax breaks to the oil and gas industry, Mr. McGovern's amendment, which is, unfortunately, ruled out of order for this bill, would end the section 451 credit for producing oil and gas from marginal wells, the section 43 credit for enhanced oil recovery, the section 263 provision allowing the existing expansion of intangible drilling costs, and a number of other provisions that in effect give oil and gas companies a lower tax rate than other companies in this country.

Why don't we use that money to reduce the deficit? Why don't we use that money to bring down the corporate tax rate overall, as is a key component of corporate tax reform, which I strongly support and discussed with Mr. Brady in our Rules Committee yesterday with regard to the other bill which moves in the wrong direction with regard to bringing down our tax rates and having a simpler Tax Code?

Mr. McGovern has offered a similar amendment to save the U.S. Government $40 billion to reduce our deficit to several different bills in the past, including through an appropriations bill, an energy bill, a tax bill. Every single time the Republicans have said, Oh, it's not germane to this bill. Every single time they voted the McGovern amendment down.

Clearly, this is a proposal that's worthy of discussion. If it's not a tax discussion and not an energy discussion, not an expenditure discussion, what kind of discussion is it? And why can't we be talking about reducing the deficit here on the floor of the House instead of continuing to spend unnecessary money on subsidies? It's funny how the majority party waives rules when it's convenient for their agenda but refuses to apply a consistent standard to an amendment that is worthy of consideration by this House.

At the same time oil companies have record profits, we're continuing to subsidize oil injection, extraction, exploration, drilling, manufacturing, pricing, and inventory valuing by creating price floors, offsetting taxes, providing generous credits and deductions, providing tax shelters, and allowing the valuation of inventories at deeply discounted prices. If we are serious about deficit reduction, let us take this opportunity to vote down this rule and allow for the discussion of the McGovern amendment. We need to close these loopholes and allow for real deficit reduction.

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

This amendment is the Bishop bill and the Corrine Brown bill, which would simply allow the House the opportunity to vote on the Senate bill, which, given the strong bipartisan majority in the Senate, I believe would pass the House of Representatives. At least let's give it a chance. Let's give the House a chance to work its will, Democrats and Republicans, and see where we really are with regard to this Congress' commitment to critical infrastructure needs in this country. Voting down this rule would be the first step in allowing Mr. Bishop and Ms. Brown to come forward with the Senate bill for consideration in this House, which would provide some certainty to State and local planners, allowing them to reduce costs and get better value for the taxpayer dollar.

I also strongly encourage the majority to consider allowing amendments and good ideas from both sides of the aisle in bills like the transportation bill, and let us work to find an appropriate time and an appropriate place for the consideration of Mr. McGovern's bill and Mr. McGovern's amendment. And whether the proceeds are used to reduce the deficit or bring down corporate taxes or some split thereof, or other worthy public purposes, surely we can at this juncture, when we cannot afford the government we have, help reduce the size and the scope of government by ending subsidies and giveaways to big multinational oil companies.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.