Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure; Ways and Means; Natural Resources; Energy and Commerce; Science, Space, and Technology; and Education and the Workforce be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 6064) to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And what I was referring to is we did send over a position on our extension, and that was the streamlining that we wanted in our original bill but was in the extension. So that's what I was talking about. That's the House position. And as far as I can tell, things are moving in a positive direction. But I guess we'll be debating your motion to instruct a little later.

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

A lot of what Mr. Hoyer said I agree with when it comes to moving a transportation bill. I think it is important to America, and our infrastructure is the backbone of our economy. We all know, I think, that in many places in the country it's crumbling, and we here in Congress need to do our job. But this motion to instruct the conferees to accept the Senate bill in its entirety is contrary to the purpose of having a House and a Senate conference.

I know my friend from Maryland has been one of the great defenders of this institution. To suggest that we should just up and take the Senate bill is a bit surprising to me that the gentleman would do that. As I said, he's been a real champion to make sure that the House maintains its position and he has always been a strong defender.

Also, I would just like to remind my Democrat colleagues, because we've been debating this bill for the past several months--my colleagues sometimes need to be reminded that when they controlled both the House and the Senate, they weren't able to get a bill out of full committee on any basis, partisan or bipartisan. So it has been a difficult road. And again, they saw the difficulties back when they were in the majority.

But it's our responsibility to sit down with our Senate colleagues and address areas where we have differences of opinion. And I might add too that there's a statement that just went out from Chairman Boxer and Chairman Mica, a joint statement, that reads:

The conferees have moved forward toward a bipartisan,

bicameral agreement on a highway reauthorization bill. Both

House and Senate conferees will continue to work with a goal

of completing a package by next week.

So there's been movement.

I would urge the gentleman to retract his motion, not offer it, because I think there is a point when the chair of the conference and the vice chair of the conference are saying, there has been movement, that it is very positive. The Senate bill, though, if you will want to continue, the Senate bill includes provisions that I have serious concerns with; and I believe many on the other side of the aisle would have serious concerns about it.

When they get to study the Senate bill, you will find that it requires that all new passenger vehicles, all new passenger vehicles beginning in 2015, be equipped with event data recorders. These recorders are similar to the black boxes that are required in aircraft. While the intent of this provision is to collect safety information, I believe many of us would see it as a slippery slope toward Big Government and Big Brother knowing what we're doing and where we are.

So, again, I think if my colleagues on the other side--and we've talked about different ways to collect data--and those on the other side of the aisle have great concerns about allowing information to be collected by Big Brother. And privacy is a big concern for many across America.

There are also areas where the Senate bill does not go far enough. While the Senate bill includes a few provisions to streamline the project delivery process, it does not go far enough. And I believe we are at a time in our history--and the gentleman and many people around here mentioned my father and the good work that he did, and he did great work. But the times have changed in the sense that the last two highway bills that were passed, the economy was in good shape, the highway trust was flush with cash, and we had the ability, as Members of Congress, to direct money back to our States and our districts. So it's been a very difficult process, minus those three things.

Again, these streamlining projects, the Senate bill does not set hard deadlines for Federal agencies to approve projects. So they can just go on and on and on--and have. And that's why it takes 14 to 15 years to build a major highway project in this country.

I was just out in Oklahoma City a month or so ago. They just opened up the Oklahoma City Crosstown Express. It cost $680 million and took 15 years to build. If we're able to do some of these streamlining projects, we believe we can cut that time in half. So if you just look at that project in Oklahoma City, $680 million, on inflation alone we could have saved $60 million to $80 million on that project alone; $60 million to $80 million would go a long way in fixing infrastructure in Maryland and Pennsylvania and Virginia and New Jersey. So these are the kinds of revisions. That's just one, setting the hard deadlines.

It does not allow State environmental laws to be used in place of Federal environmental laws. When a State has a more rigorous environmental process, like California, like other States, why do they need the Federal Government's approval when theirs goes far beyond what we do here in Washington? Or if it's equal to the Federal Government, instead of going through a second environmental regulatory process, let's let the States use theirs--if it's equal to or exceeds the EPA standards.

It does not expand the list of projects that qualify for categorical exclusions. What are categorical exclusions? If you are going to replace a bridge with another bridge in the same footprint, if you are going to expand a roadbed in the current right-of-way, it would allow there to be an abbreviated, a faster review process so that we can get those bridges built faster, we can get those lanes added more quickly.

Again, what it comes down to is saving money. Time is money. I think we all know that. And it also does not expedite projects that are being rebuilt due to disasters. Again, we've seen it in Minnesota. When the bridge collapsed, in 436 days we were able to construct a major bridge crossing over that river in Minnesota.

Also, program consolidation is another important reform that the House has been pushing. The Senate has been pushing to add two new programs at a dollar cost of $3 billion a year. At a time when the highway trust fund is going broke, we should be focusing our limited transportation dollars on consolidating programs and eliminating wasteful programs, not creating new ones.

Funding flexibility for the States, another critical point that allows the States to fund the most economically significant highway and bridge projects in their State. The Federal Government should not mandate the States to plant flowers and beautification.

Even bike paths--and I have been a big supporter of bike paths in the past; but today when we have bridges crumbling, when there is safety in question, in good conscience we can't tell States to spend that type of money. But if they want to, they can. They can opt out. They can spend that money if they so desire. But again, I think this is not a time when the Federal Government should be telling States to spend money on projects that aren't going to be the most beneficial to their constituencies. We need to focus those resources.

These are issues that are not addressed in the Senate bill and should be addressed in this conference. And from the statement that I read earlier, I believe we are moving in a direction to adopt some of what I just talked about.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion. I would urge the gentleman, my friend from Maryland, to step back again at a time when we're getting so close. As the gentleman fully knows--he's been in this institution long enough and has negotiated many, many significant pieces of legislation--this is not a time for us to be out here talking about it, but to hunker down, make sure the conferees, the two chairmen are able to move forward to get a bill that's going to benefit America.

And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Just in response to my good friend from Maryland, I'm glad he brought up some of those other provisions, and they are job-creating provisions.

The RAMP Act will unlock the Harbor Trust Fund so we can invest in our

ports, which I know the gentleman has a major port in Maryland. But those dollars are going to rebuilding and dredging and doing the things we need to do to be competitive around the world. So that's a jobs act that's in the transportation bill. And I might add, ports are certainly transportation.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

We have also a reform in there on the coal ash, which is an element that goes into making cement. Of course, building roads and bridges, it's about cement and concrete. So there's another provision in it we believe will help our industries to be able to continue to make and produce cement to build our roads.

Finally, the Keystone pipeline. I think all of America--or most of America knows that's been paying attention, which is about 80 percent-- believe it is a positive thing to bring oil and energy to America to help power this economy while creating 20,000 jobs and maybe as much as a hundred thousand jobs in indirect labor and jobs to this country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the passion from the gentleman from Virginia, and I believe he is a supporter of infrastructure, as am I. I think you were referring to the former chairman. I was just emailing back and forth to him. He sees much agreement with what we're trying to do in the House. He sees the need for reform. And as I've been going through this process, I certainly talked to him about some of the things he wishes he would have been able to accomplish. And what we're doing in this bill are things he's applauding. If any of you don't realize, the chairman is still alive and well and still consults with his Member of Congress--when I ask and when I don't ask, I might add.

Again, I have to remind my colleagues, and be respectful when I do this, when you had the majority, six times you extended without passing a bill. And you had a majority in the House and Senate and White House. And I might add that, if you would have focused the stimulus bill on an infrastructure bill instead of spending it in all different ways that didn't have the kind of impact that you thought and, in fact, didn't have much of an impact at all, I think we would see a much different economy today if we would have focused on this because I know there are jobs out there, millions of jobs, in construction and construction- related businesses where we could help by passing a bill.

Again, just to remind my colleagues, the House and the Senate, chairman and vice chairman, have issued a statement. We are moving in the right direction towards a bipartisan, bicameral

solution, not just a Senate solution. Again, I know that the two gentlemen, the whip and of course Mr. Moran from Virginia, have been great defenders of the House. For us to just give in to the Senate, I don't think I've ever seen them when they were in the majority just handing it off to the Senate. So I feel positive.

Again, I supported Mr. Walz's motion to instruct a few days ago because he said get in there, hammer this thing out; come up with a bipartisan, bicameral bill. That's why I supported that. Again, on this, I just can't support this. I have got to vote against it, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' also.

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of the motion to instruct.

Passing a transportation bill is about jobs. It's about keeping America competitive in the world. So I, for one, am urging a ``yes'' vote on this motion to instruct. I believe it is critical to America that we pass a transportation bill.

I would like to correct a few facts that my good friend from Oregon just put forward. The gentleman to my recollection has been on the Ways and Means Committee for the past couple of years, 4 years I believe it has been, so I don't know how privy he was to what we did in the House Transportation Committee to try to be inclusive to our Democratic colleagues, to work with them. We worked with them as openly, if not more openly, than Chairman Oberstar when he chaired the committee. We did have a full committee hearing on it. In fact, we had 18 hours of debate. And as I recall, when Chairman Oberstar chaired the committee, we had zero hours of debate in the full committee because a bill from the Democratic-controlled House didn't even make it to the full committee. So we worked hard and we talked with our colleagues. Unfortunately, being bipartisan is not just one party saying that they can't work with another party. It takes two of us to tango. We did in the last bill. I wasn't happy with much of Chairman Oberstar's bill, but to move a bill forward, we said okay, we're with you, we'll move the bill. Our Democratic colleagues chose to make it a partisan fight by not getting together with us.

But I applaud my friend from Minnesota with this motion to instruct. We need to move forward. What we have been negotiating in the Senate, really five provisions on our streamlining that are extremely important--eliminating duplication, where you have a State that's environmental review process is as strong or stronger than the Federal review process, that should take the place. It should substitute for the Federal review process. The number one example of that is California. California is far stricter on environmental reviews than the EPA is. So why don't we allow California to move forward rather than having to go through a NEPA review at the Federal level?

Hard deadlines; concurrent rather than consecutive reviews with hard deadlines. We've been talking with the Senate for the past couple of months about this, but they insist upon having safety valves. What does safety valves mean? That means that an agency can go to the Secretary of Transportation and ask for a waiver and say they need more time. That's not going to help to streamline this process because we know what will happen: it'll continue to prolong these review processes.

Funding thresholds for a NEPA review. If a project receives de minimis amounts of Federal funding, it should not be subject to a Federal NEPA review but should go through the same regulations as a State project. And we've already moved on this. We sent a counteroffer to the Senate moving on our position. So in good faith, that's what we've been doing in the House.

Categorical exclusions in rights of way. If you're going to replace a bridge in the same footprint, we shouldn't have to go through these endless, long environmental reviews. We should be able to build that quickly and efficiently. In fact, my colleague from Oregon, who is the ranking member on the Highway Subcommittee, has suggested that there is some common ground there. In fact, I quote him, he said, and it had to do with putting streetcars back on the streets:

We're going to have fewer cars on the road, why should we spend a lot of time and money studying it?

And I agree with him.

And finally, when there's a disaster, to eliminate or to reduce significantly these reviews they have to go through, just as in the case of I 35, as was mentioned earlier, to be able to build that bridge in a much more efficient, faster time to get it up and running.

I support the gentleman's motion to instruct, and I stand ready as a Republican on the conference committee to put a bill forward that we can pass here, and I would urge all of my colleagues in the House to support this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Republic of Azerbaijan in celebration of the 94th anniversary of Republic Day on May 28th.

Azerbaijan and the United States have developed a robust and growing relationship over the last two decades. I am proud extremely that we have established what Secretary Clinton has called ``deep, important, and durable bonds between the United States and Azerbaijan.''

Although located in a geopolitically dynamic region sandwiched between Russia and Iran, Azerbaijan has consistently looked to the United States as an ally despite these difficult neighbors. A secular county with a predominantly Muslim population, Azerbaijan has also been home for over a millennia to vibrant Christian and Jewish communities representing a role model for peaceful coexistence and harmony of different religions and ethnic groups.

Azerbaijan was also the first country to open Caspian energy resources to development by U.S. and European companies and has emerged as a key player for global energy security. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline project, supported by both the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations, is the most successful project contributing to the development of the South Caucuses region. Exporting around 1 million barrels of oil and gas from the Caspian Sea basin to international markets, Azerbaijan also provides nearly 40 percent of all crude oil supplies to Israel. Additionally, the successful launch and continued exploration of the Shah Deniz project will open up the Southern Gas Corridor delivering alternative gas supplies to Europe, further contributing towards a movement away from dependence on Middle Eastern Oil and energy suppliers.

Azerbaijan has also continued to take steps to ensure the strength and security of its infrastructure in a tumultuous region. The completion of the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railroad connection expected in early 2013, expansion of cargo and passenger terminal of the Baku international airport, and construction of the brand new Baku International Sea Trade Port all are key contributors to Azerbaijan's increasing role as a transportation hub in the region linking European and Asian markets.

On a security front, Azerbaijan has been a key ally in a post 9 11 era, emerging as one of the first countries to offer strong support and assistance to the United States. Actively participating in joint operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, Azerbaijan has also extended important over-flight clearances of U.S. and NATO flights and provided key supply routes to Afghanistan by making available its ground and Caspian naval transportation facilities providing ground and naval transit for roughly 40 percent of the Coalitions supplies bound for Afghanistan.

As the Co-Chairman of the Congressional Azerbaijan Caucus, it is my distinct pleasure to honor the Republic of Azerbaijan in celebration of the 94th anniversary of Republic Day and to recognize the valuable bilateral relationship between the United States and Azerbaijan. I also encourage my colleagues who are interested in supporting Azerbaijan to join me as a member of Congressional Azerbaijan Caucus, a bipartisan group of more than 50 Members of Congress working to help foster the growing partnership between the United States and Azerbaijan and to advance U.S. interests in this pivotal region.

I just want to remind my colleague from New York, as he is walking off the floor, that it was the Democratic-controlled Congress that was unable to pass a transportation bill when they had control of this body for the past couple of years.

Today, I come to the floor in opposition to the motion to instruct; and, quite frankly, I'm surprised, I'm shocked, I'm stunned that my colleagues on the other side are willing to take up a Senate bill which is a bad bill and, in fact, there's a couple of provisions in there that I would think the ranking member of the full committee and the ranking member of the Railroad Subcommittee would embrace. There is a coal ash provision in there which is going to be good for coal in West Virginia, so that is something I would hope that we would embrace going to conference, to come out and save those jobs in West Virginia, create more jobs.

Then, of course, the gentlelady from Florida, she embraces the Senate bill, which is going to be a disincentive for private money. It's my understanding that Florida is a leader when it comes to working with the private sector to build infrastructure. Why in the world would we want to have a disincentive out there for public-private partnerships when Florida will benefit mightily from it? Again, as I said, I'm stunned that we're standing here today with this motion to instruct.

The Senate bill fails to make real reforms, continues the transportation enhancement and safety routes, the school programs that mandate bike paths and roadside flowers and ``walking school bus'' programs. You would think that the people in Pennsylvania, Florida or West Virginia didn't love their kids enough that they wouldn't be able to instruct them on their own how to go to school safely.

Also, the people in Pennsylvania, we need to spend that money--not on bike paths, although I love bike paths, I have got a few of them in my district--but the time we face today should be focused on repairing those bridges when Pennsylvania has over 5,000 bridges that are in desperate need of repair. Again, the Senate bill continues to mandate that they hire a bike/pedestrian coordinator and a Safe Routes to School coordinator. Like I said, those are things I don't believe belong in this bill.

Further, the Senate bill fails, or it creates, actually, a national freight program adding to bureaucracy at PennDOT. The new freight program allows States to use up to 10 percent of their appropriated funds for freight rail projects, which means less money for highways and bridges. I'm an advocate for rail in this country. I don't believe that Class I's would want anything to do with this because every time they have got involved with Federal money, it takes a lot longer and it's a lot more expensive. I don't even believe that the Class I's would embrace a program like this that the Senate is putting forward out there. The Federal regulatory provisions for passenger rail providers include rail authorities that are intended to stifle competition. Once again, there's private sector initiatives going on all over this country when it's coming to commuter rail.

Another thing, positive train controls, the Senate doesn't push that back. We found the technology is not there; it's not right. We don't have it. You can't use alternative forms of safety devices when it comes to positive train control.

In addition to that, in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, SEPTA, they are going to have to spend half of their capital money, half of their capital dollars, to put positive train control in place. This is going to cause even the trains in New Jersey and the Philadelphia area to be less safe because they are not going to be spending on fixing their rolling stock and rehabilitating their rail lines.

So this bill, again, falls far short of any kind of reforms we need, as well as the Railroad Rehabilitation Improvement Financing fund, which is a loan program to tap into $35 billion.

Now, that's the kind of reform we need to see, not forcing States to spend 10 percent in freight rail projects, but let's let them tap into this RRIF loan program and make it easier.

The way our bill and our reforms are, it would make it much easier for the Class I's, and especially the short lines, to be able to invest those dollars at low interest rates and improve the freight rail system in this country.

Again, I'm stunned that my colleagues wouldn't support these what I consider to be groundbreaking reforms that will allow us to spend more money on building roads and bridges.

With that, I urge a rejection of this motion to instruct.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him on his amendment.

I think it's a great amendment. As a freshman, you have done tremendous work on the committee. And you've been in Washington only a year-and-a-half, and yet you brought a shovel here. That shovel shovels more than just dirt. It shovels other stuff that happens here in Washington. And it's time we clear some of that out to be able to streamline building roads and highways in this country.

And that's what your amendment does. It cuts bureaucratic red tape, allows the Federal agencies to review transportation projects concurrently, which is extremely important. It delegates project approval authority to the States, establishes hard deadlines to Federal agencies to make decisions on permits, which is going to definitely speed up the process. It expands the list of activities that qualify for categorical exclusions, an approval process that's faster and simpler than the standard process. The environmental protections do remain in place.

I disagree with the gentleman from Oregon. I have all the confidence in the world that what the gentleman has in his amendment here will allow just what's in the right-of-way. That's what we interpreted, and I believe that's how the States will interpret it. So I have all the confidence that this amendment is properly prepared and we're going to pass it here on the floor today.

So, again, these are practical reforms. Time is money, and anybody that's been in business knows time is money. And that's what these reforms are going to do: reduce the time, which will reduce the cost to get us highways and bridges built faster in this country.

I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble) on his excellent work and his work on this committee and also the chairman for his tireless efforts in bringing the extension to the floor. And as we move into conference, I'm confident we're going to come up with something that's better than we see from the other side.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to recognize the Hollidaysburg Area YMCA upon the 100th anniversary of their continued service to our community. I, along with close to 6,000 of my constituents, am proud to call Hollidaysburg home and am pleased to have the opportunity to call attention to such a respected mainstay in our community.

The Hollidaysburg Area YMCA, founded in 1912, currently boasts roughly 4,000 members. These members are provided training, education, the use of the grounds and facility, and access to multiple wellness events throughout the course of the year. In 2011, they proudly bore the title of the largest wellness program available in Blair County, teaching and advocating youth development, healthy living, and social responsibility. This feat is made all the more impressive by the fact that they serve as a completely non-profit community center with no subsidy from tax revenues. Beside their own regular members, an estimated 25,000 individuals come through their doors each month to receive the same high quality care and instruction that YMCAs all across the United States provide on a daily basis.

In addition to general safety and instruction, the Hollidaysburg Area YMCA also operates one of the largest childcare centers in the area, providing a resource for American families in surrounding areas, encouraging and supporting the hard work and diligence that makes America great. This, combined with their welcoming community center, their extensive aquatic programs, and the financial assistance provided to nearly 600 individuals annually, has endeared this establishment to its people and community.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the YMCA of the Hollidaysburg Area for 100 years of history, growth and success. This organization continually lives out their mission by putting ``Christian-Judeo principles into practice through programs and services that build healthy spirits, minds, and bodies for all.'' Hollidaysburg is honored to boast such a vital and interactive part of our community and I invite the American people to help celebrate this anniversary by exploring the opportunities and advantages that the YMCAs of America provide their communities.

I wish the gentleman from California would have shown that kind of passion when the stimulus bill was passed 2 years ago and had come to the floor and said that the stimulus bill should be an infrastructure bill. There was only a very, very small portion--I think about $68 billion of that $800 billion stimulus package--that went to the infrastructure of this country. Where was the gentleman when that outrage was happening?

If you want real stimulation--and we believe this stimulates the economy in that this helps put concrete on our roads and repairs our bridges and puts people to work--this bill will do that, a 5-year bill. An 18-month bill is not going to put any kind of certainty out there. I correct myself. It will create certainty. The certainty is that it will bankrupt the trust fund in less than 2 years. Our bill that we've been trying to pass here, a 5-year bill, that's what the people back in the States want.

To the gentleman from Oregon, I'm surprised. He has been a long-time member of the T&I Committee and knows that a long-term transportation bill is better for the States, that it's better for the folks who build roads and employ people, and that that's what we need here. That's what we're trying to get at.

I will not yield to the gentleman from West Virginia. I know the gentleman has plenty of time, and he can respond on his time.

This 90-day extension is a clean extension. It gives us the time to work on a 5-year bill. As I said, members on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee know that a 5-year bill is something that would put certainty out there to the folks in the States--to the folks who are going to buy trucks, who are going to hire people, who are going to expand their businesses to build and rebuild these bridges and roads throughout the country. It doesn't make any sense to do an 18- month extension, which is basically what the Senate's bill does, and along the way bankrupt the trust fund.

Our 5-year bill has significant reforms in it that will shorten the timeframe to build a highway. We all sit around here and we talk about streamlining government. That's what this bill does. It eliminates departments and consolidates departments in transportation, and it shortens the timeline of 14 to 15 years down to 7 to 8 years.

Now, it's tough to quantify the savings, but we all know that time is money. All of us have seen these projects that go on year, after year, after year. They balloon and they have cost overruns. This bill is going to solve a lot of those problems, so we need to pass this 90-day extension in order to be able to continue to work on a real solution to our infrastructure.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

I dispute the gentleman from West Virginia's figures. Are we going to spend less? Yes, quite possibly. But we have to live within our means. And by streamlining, I believe we'll spend that money out, and we'll create more jobs by streamlining.

I thank the chairman.

Listening to the last speaker, I believe that the other side of the aisle has got a case of amnesia because I was here in 2007 and 2011 when they had the majority in the House, the majority in the Senate, and the Presidency, and they did nothing. Well, that's not true. In fact, the last speaker, the gentleman from Oregon, he was the chair of the Highway Subcommittee; and we passed a bill by voice vote out of the subcommittee, a Democratic version. Voice vote. That means it came out of subcommittee in a bipartisan way.

Now, there was a lot in that bill I didn't like. But it was probably what the gentleman from Oregon, the last speaker, and the majority party wanted to do was to expand government control of the highway system, expand

the decision-making process to the bureaucrats in Washington instead of allowing the people in the States to make more of those decisions.

So it's startling to me to hear the criticism and insults hurled at our side of the aisle. I do take offense to the fact that he said we hate America. We love America. We love the American people and the wisdom of the American people and the wisdom of those in State government to make decisions, also.

I believe there is a national role in the transportation system in this country. It is a national policy. It's based on our founding. It's our history. We've always been part of this national system. So I want to pass a bill, a 5-year bill. I don't believe my colleagues have gone home and listened to their DOT directors and the people that build roads and sell equipment and the business people. They want a 5-year bill. They do not want a 2-year bill because they won't make decisions on expanding their businesses, buying equipment, hiring people on an 18-month bill.

And oh, by, the way, by the time we pass--if we pass--the Senate bill, it will be a 16-month bill. It's just another extension. It doesn't have reforms in it. Our bill does reform. It will allow that $260 billion to be spent faster. And anybody that's been in business and had to deal with the day in and day out knows that time is money. If it takes 14 to 15 years to build a highway versus 7 or 8, that's going to cost us a lot more money. That's common sense. That's why this 5-year bill is a commonsense bill and we need to pass it.

But I've come here on the floor today to debate not the 5-year bill because I believe it's the best way to go; I've come here to support the bipartisan agreement--I thought it was a bipartisan agreement; I guess we'll find out shortly--a bipartisan agreement for a 60-day clean extension that will give us the time to move forward and put a commonsense bill on the floor that will encourage growth in America. It will encourage people to hire and invest in their businesses when they're building roads and bridges in this country.

Failing to pass this extension is really not an option, so I hope that my friends will get behind this extension and pass it so that we can work to pass a bill that makes a lot of sense--and that is H.R. 7-- and that will help to create jobs.

Again, I would remind my colleagues if they're watching this or colleagues in the Chamber, from 2007 to 2011 our Democratic colleagues that controlled both branches of government, both Houses of Congress, did not pass a highway bill. They passed a stimulus bill that didn't work. Only 8 percent of it went to highway and infrastructure projects. We as Republicans offered an alternative: half of the amount of money that the Democrats passed, and half of that money going to rebuilding our infrastructure.

If they truly cared about rebuilding the infrastructure of this country, they would have passed a highway bill from 2007 to 2011, but they failed to do it; and now they've come to the floor to criticize our side. And we've worked very, very hard. Chairman Mica has put together a bill that really does do significant reform. And I don't know why the other side resists reform when we can spend money quicker and we can get that money out there and rebuild the roads and bridges we need today.

I thank the gentleman from Florida, and I appreciate the opportunity to be able to ask my Democratic colleagues, following up on the distinguished leader's question but with a little twist to it, why didn't your side, when you had control of both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, why didn't you pass a bill, a highway bill? You had the votes. You could have done anything you wanted to.

In fact, the former distinguished Speaker that just spoke said that this is going to be the biggest jobs bill we pass. I thought your stimulus was supposed to be the biggest jobs bill we ever passed. It's amazing to me to come down here on the floor--and I have so much respect for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--but to hear this argument going round and round, and as I said earlier, there's amnesia on the other side of the aisle. You had control of Congress. The bill expired in 2009. You still had control of both Houses and the Presidency. You didn't pass a bill.

I also would like to make note, if you look back in the history of the highway bill, we've never been in the financial situation that we are today. We've never faced the kind of debt that we face today. And what this bill does is it lives within our means. But it does more than just that, living within our means, which we should do, and I would add, Thomas Jefferson would be appalled if he saw the kind of debt we've racked up today. He would be appalled by that.

So we're living within our means, and we're streamlining the process. We are saying we can do more with less if we change the process. The Senate bill doesn't have the kind of reforms. What the Senate bill does is it bankrupts the highway trust fund. It bankrupts the highway trust fund. And then we even have a bigger problem 2 years down the road, actually maybe 18 months, maybe 17 months, probably 16 months by the time we get it passed. The Senate bill requires States to incorporate livability and smart growth policies, as if the States aren't smart enough to do it themselves? As if the States and cities in this country can't figure out how they want to improve the livability of their cities? No. The Federal Government has to do it. The Federal Government has to insist that they do that.

Look, I think that Members of Congress ought to have the ability to direct where some of these funds go, but the Senate bill, what it allows are the bureaucrats.

The bureaucrats in Washington will decide how the money is spent, not even the folks back in the States. The Senate fails to streamline the project delivery process which we do. That will allow us to build roads faster, and time is money. Anybody that's been in business knows time is money. And that is extremely important to this. The Senate bill discourages private sector investment, and it increases the regulation. Like I said, this bill is a good bill, it's a solid bill, it's one that the people out there want to see, a 5-year bill, not a 17- or 16-month extension.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, as the Co-Chairman of the House Azerbaijan Caucus, I rise today to bring attention to the tragedy that took place in Khojaly, Azerbaijan, a town and townspeople that were destroyed on February 26, 1992.

This month we will mark the 20th anniversary of that devastating and heartbreaking day. Sadly, today there is little attention or interest paid to the plight of Khojaly outside of Azerbaijan. However, one of our greatest strengths as elected officials is the opportunity to bring to light truths that are little known and command recognition. As a friend of Azerbaijan, I am proud to remind my colleagues that we must never forget the tragedy that took place at Khojaly.

At the time, the Khojaly tragedy was widely covered by the international media, including the Boston Globe, Washington Post, New York Times, Financial Times, and many other European and Russian news agencies.

Khojaly, a town in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, now under the control of Armenian forces, was the site of the largest killing of ethnic Azerbaijani civilians. With a population of approximately 7,000, Khojaly was one of the largest urban settlements of the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan.

According to Human Rights Watch and other international observers the massacre was committed by the ethnic Armenian armed forces, reportedly with the help of the Russian 366th Motor Rifle Regiment. Human Rights Watch described the Khojaly Massacre as ``the largest massacre to date in the conflict'' over Nagorna-Karabakh. In a 1993 report, the watchdog group stated ``there are no exact figures for the number of Azeri civilians killed because Karabakh Armenian forces gained control of the area after the massacre'' and ``while it is widely accepted that 200 Azeris were murdered, as many as 500--1,000 may have died.''

Azerbaijan has been a strong strategic partner and friend of the United States. The tragedy of Khojaly was a crime against humanity and I urge my colleagues to join me in standing with Azerbaijanis as they commemorate this tragedy.

I wasn't going to speak on the rule, but I heard my colleague from Oregon stand up and criticize the bill, criticize the process, and I needed to set the record straight.

This bill is the first bill that has come out of the committee on a partisan-line vote, but it's not because of Republicans. It's because Democrats refused to participate in the process.

When they were in the majority, Chairman Oberstar brought a bill to the committee and we unanimously supported it. There was a lot of stuff in there we didn't like, but we wanted to do it on a bipartisan basis, try to correct some of the problems. But we were unable to even move that bill to the floor because the majority, the Democrat majority, wouldn't even put that bill on the floor.

So it's not that Republicans didn't reach out to our colleagues across the aisle. We did. Chairman Mica and many members of the committee traveled the United States, had bipartisan hearings, had a bicameral hearing in California with Senator Boxer. So we reached out and reached out and reached out.

And the Democrats typically want to work together on the T&I Committee. I don't know; maybe their leadership told them they weren't allowed to work with us on this. But this bill is the biggest reform bill that's happened in the transportation industry, in transportation in this country since its inception of the highway trust fund in the 1950s.

We are consolidating programs that overlap and today are outmoded, so we've consolidated, eliminated some. We're compressing the timelines. Most Americans don't realize that it takes, on average, 13 to 15 years to build a highway in this country. We're compressing that to 7 to 8 years. We're going to have more roads built in this country because we are taking the reforms that are necessary.

This has gone on for far too long, and I'm really disappointed that my Democratic colleagues, all they want to do is raise taxes. They want to increase the regulation instead of making government work better, more efficiently, and get those dollars out there quicker that our communities need.

So I believe this is a significantly improved transportation bill than what we've seen at least 2 years ago, and it's something that I support wholeheartedly and would encourage my Democratic colleagues to take a close look and support it also.

I thank the gentleman from Allentown for yielding.

It's a great privilege for me to be here on the House floor today talking about someone whom I had the highest regard for, and over the years I was able to watch just what a tremendous thing he did at Penn State University. It's not just about winning football games. Of course he won 409 games in his 46 seasons, five undefeated teams, and led Penn State to two national championships. But he did more than that. He did more for the university.

And I know my colleagues have already talked about--it's the only Division I school in the country that has a wing of the library named after the head football coach. That's because of his and Sue's dedication and contributions to building not only that library but that institution. And a lot of that building came about because he built those football teams and brought national attention to Penn State.

But for me, on a personal level, probably one of the proudest moments I had was to stand on the House floor when--I believe it was when he surpassed Walter Camp's winning record of 309 victories, I think it was, about 10 years ago. And John Peterson, the Congressman from Pennsylvania who represented that part of the country at that time-- G.T.'s predecessor--we had a Special Order on the floor. John Peterson started first, and then the great coach Tom Osborne--which I don't know if many people know, but Tom Osborne served in Congress in the early 2000s. So Tom Osborne then got up and spoke about Joe Paterno and his respect for him. So then I got to follow Tom Osborne. I'm following a legendary football coach talking about a legendary football coach, which really, even to this day, I'm getting

goosebumps remembering that time because it was really an exciting moment that I will always remember.

But again, what Joe Paterno did, which stood him apart from many other coaches, was his dedication to education and academic excellence. Unlike many other schools with Division I programs, Paterno recruited players, speaking first about Penn State's academic excellence. And during that time in the early 2000s, when I served with Coach Tom Osborne, those were lean years for Penn State and for Joe Paterno. And when we would come to town on a Monday or a Tuesday night for votes, Coach Osborne would summon me over on the floor and talk to me about what was going on in central Pennsylvania, how was the media treating Joe; and there was a real concern that Coach Osborne had for Joe Paterno and a real respect came through.

So after several of these meetings, I finally asked Coach Osborne, I said, It's obvious you have this great respect for Joe Paterno. Is that because you thought he was a superior coach to you? And he said, Oh, no, absolutely not. I have a higher winning percentage than Paterno. But I do have a great respect for Joe because Joe could do something that nobody ever was able to achieve; and that is, year in and year out, Joe Paterno would graduate roughly 85 percent of his players, but always the highest graduation rate in Division I. And on top of that, he had quality football teams and he recruited quality players and he could compete at a national level. So, he said, that's something none of us could do.

Then Coach Osborne went on to tell me about how he would talk to Joe in the off-season and try to understand the programs and the discipline and the things he did, because he wanted to be able to get to that level with Joe. And Coach Osborne told me that, I believe, the highest he ever got was a 79 percent graduation rate.

So that's from one of the great all-time coaches, the great respect he held for Joe Paterno. And again, it was not just about his football; it was about what he was, about building young men, about instilling in them the need to educate themselves and to be excellent when it came to their academic efforts.

He often said you have to start with the idea that a kid has to be a student first. Paterno said in a 1982 Gannett News Service interview: We preach there are three things in a student's life when it comes to Penn State: studies, academics, and social life, and you must keep them in that order and you can never back away from that.

So again, Joe Paterno's education-first mindset paid off for those thousands of young men that came to Penn State. I don't know if you watched the ceremony, the dedication to his life and his funeral, but you saw that come clear through, not just from superstars but from kids who couldn't even play after a couple of years because of injury, but Joe Paterno stuck with them and encouraged them and instilled in them the performance of academics in their life and making sure that they get that education. Because as we know full well, when kids play Division I sports, whether it's football, it's basketball, it's baseball, they don't always--99 percent of them never make it to the pro level. But they got an opportunity to go to college.

And places like Penn State and other universities, when you have coaches like Joe Paterno and coaches who aspire to be like Joe Paterno, they instill in those kids that those 99 percent who can't make it big in the pros, they still can get an education. They still can graduate from college and go out and get a good job and provide for their families and become productive citizens. Again, that's something that Joe Paterno always preached, to be productive, to be a good citizen, to give back to your community. He lived that life, and he will be sorely missed, not only in Pennsylvania, but I believe throughout the college ranks and throughout the Nation. He'll be one of those people you can look to and say: That's the kind of coach I want to be. That's the kind of program that I want to build, and those are the kind of kids that I want to turn into young, productive citizens of the United States of America.

So again, I'm pleased to be here with my colleagues from Allentown and--Bellefonte? Close to Bellefonte.

That's even smaller. And I'm actually from Everett, Charlie. Altoona is a big city to me. I don't even know my way around Altoona.

But again, thanks a lot for you guys doing this. I appreciate it greatly.

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

I do stand here as the former chairman of the Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management Subcommittee who served

alongside the distinguished delegate from the District of Columbia. For the years I was chairman, we worked very well together, and so it is a great disappointment that I come to the floor tonight when we thought we had an agreement. If fact, we did have an agreement. The chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee were willing to accept the gentlelady's amendment and put it in the bill. But yet here we are today turning this into a partisan bill, which as I said is very disappointing. She said she couldn't come to the floor just on hope. She had more than hope; she had the word of the chairman of the subcommittee and the word of the chairman of the full committee.

So I am here tonight in strong support of the Civilian Property Realignment Act. There are immediate savings: a savings up to $1 billion a year this year alone, and $15 billion over the next 10 years. It reduces the size of government. The commission was tasked with literally reducing the Federal footprint.

And as we know, we have an example right down on Pennsylvania Avenue. The Old Post Office building is going to be put up for a long-term lease. We've got some of the premier hotel operators in the world that want to turn that into a first-rate premier hotel right on Pennsylvania Avenue. Whether it's the Waldorf Astoria or the Marriott or the Trump organization, they all want to take that and immediately turn it into a premier hotel. There will be construction jobs, jobs working in the hotel for the long term, so it's really unfortunate that this bill is going to be made partisan this evening.

The bill establishes a real property commission, a nine person Civilian Property Realignment Commission that will serve to consolidate the footprint, maximize the utilization rate of Federal buildings and facilities, reduce the reliance on costly leased space, sell or redevelop high-value assets that are underutilized--as we talked about, the old Post Office Building. It reduces the operating and maintenance costs of Federal civilian real properties through the realignment of other real properties. It reduces redundancy, overlap, and costs associated with field offices. It creates incentives for Federal agencies to achieve greater efficiency in the inventories of real property the Federal Government has. It facilitates and expedites the sale or disposal of unneeded civilian properties. And it assists Federal agencies in achieving the government's sustainability goals by reducing excess space, inventory, energy consumption, as well as by leveraging new technologies.

As the former chair of this committee, I held hearings about the Federal courthouses. We have overbuilt Federal courthouses in many places in this country for years. For years we've done that. This is going to take a step in reducing what we've been doing and consolidating and doing things that are appropriate and proper to save the taxpayers' money.

It takes the politics out of the process. It provides for expedited review and up-or-down consideration of the commission's recommendations, just like the BRAC process.

Congress would have the opportunity to disapprove of the committee's recommendations en bloc only, not in piecemeal, which is ensuring that politics will be removed from this process.

It provides for a one-time appropriation of $82 million to fully offset from the GSA's building and acquisition amount, after which proceeds from the sale will be used to repay the Treasury.

I thank the gentleman.

It deals exclusively with public properties--military installations, properties deemed essential for reasons of national security, and national parks are not subject to this jurisdiction.

Again, I come to the floor tonight with deep disappointment in the ranking member, who for so many years has worked in a bipartisan way on this subcommittee. Text was available since December, so it's no surprise. The subcommittee chairman and full committee chairman agreed to accept her amendment in its entirety, and most importantly, and something that's lacking in Washington today and lacking in Congress, is people not keeping their word, and the chairman of the subcommittee is keeping his word, which is extremely important in this whole process.

I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property Realignment Act.

I rise today in support of the conference report for the FAA Modernization Reform Act of 2012. This is a very good bipartisan, bicameral conference report.

I want to congratulate Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Rahall, Chairman Petri, and a special congratulations and thanks to Ranking Member Costello for years of service here. It's been a pleasure serving with you, and I wish you the best as you ride off into the sunset, but I'm sure you'll be doing great things in the future. So, again, thanks for all your hard work in your years here in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the Modernization and Reform Act does not raise taxes or passenger facility charges. It holds spending levels through 2015 at $63 billion over the 4 years, and it does not add to the deficit, which I'm very pleased to see.

It provides long-term stability for the FAA and the aviation industry, which is a certainty in that transportation sector that has sorely been missing in the economy. So we believe it's going to create and sustain good-paying jobs.

It accelerates and requires accountability for the deployment of NextGen, the FAA's air traffic control modernization program, which we need in order to be able to more efficiently manage the skies above us.

It provides for unprecedented reforms of the National Mediation Board.

While I'm disappointed that we were unable to include the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme prohibition language, we will continue to pursue the passage of that bill. I think it's something we really need to focus on here in Congress before the taxes are starting to be collected and do great damage and harm to our aviation and airline industry.

This is a responsible and much-needed conference report. Therefore, I urge all Members to vote to pass the conference report for the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.