Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I would like to extend my personal appreciation to the dedicated staff in the Office of Legislative Counsel here in the House of Representatives for helping us to write important legislation reauthorizing surface transportation programs. In addition, I would like to thank the staff of the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration for providing us with their technical assistance and expertise. In particular, I would like to thank the following individuals for their work on this legislation:

From the Office of Legislative Counsel

Transportation and Infrastructure Attorneys

Curt Haensel

Rosemary Gallagher

Tom Dillon

Kakuti Lin

Tim Brown

Clerks

Nancy McNeillie

Debra Birch

Ramseyer Team

Craig Sterkx

Thomas Meryweather

Pamela Griffiths

From the Federal Highway Administration

Tim Arnade

Andrew Wishnia

Jennifer Steinhoff

Steven Frankel

Carolyn Edwards

Todd Kohr

Kimberly Monaco

From the Federal Transit Administration

Rich Steinmann

Kate Webb

Bonnie Graves

Rita Maristch

Thanks to the dedication of these experts we have achieved a major accomplishment in the passage of H.R. 4348.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I had not been privy to the prior debates of our discussion of the subject and the repeal legislation at hand. Is it appropriate and within the decorum of the House to refer to the legislation that is being considered repealed as repealing ``ObamaCare''?

I don't want to inflict any disrespect on the office of the President. In order to keep in the decorum and respect for the office, may we refer to the President's plan for health care government takeover as ``ObamaCare'' or in another term?

What would be appropriate under the rule?

But if I do refer to it as ObamaCare, I'm not out of order?

Thank you. And I have been instructed by the staff that the proper term--or the title of the bill, I guess, Mr. Speaker, is Repeal of Obamacare, but I wanted to clarify that before I began.

As the Supreme Court rendered its decision, I had the opportunity to stand with some of my colleagues on the steps of the Court just across from the Capitol. I stood on the steps and spoke to the crowd gathered with other Members of Congress, and I said the decision by the Court to, again, uphold the law that we seek to repeal, the decision was basically the decision to tax the people. And the power to tax, it's been said, is the power to destroy.

I come before the House tonight and I'll state the same concerns I expressed on the steps of the Supreme Court. First, the power to destroy.

It's appropriate tonight that the Small Business Committee is here, chaired by the distinguished gentleman from Missouri. American small business has been stuck in neutral. The decision by the Court in upholding this law is taking small business, which is stuck in neutral, and actually putting it in reverse. It's putting it in reverse because it is one of the largest tax impositions--call it a mandate, call it a penalty--that you could impose on small business, which is the primary economic generator in the United States.

As a former businessman, I know the difficulty in trying to keep the door open, the lights on, the bills paid. This is probably creating the greatest uncertainty and the greatest depression in the creation of jobs since expansion of small business in the United States. So, indeed, the power to tax is the power to destroy.

Secondly, I stand in support of the measure to repeal ObamaCare, or the President's plan for health care, because of the impact on our senior citizens. The power to destroy something they sought as seniors and a promise from our government, Medicare, to cut half a trillion dollars from Medicare is not the way to go. That's why I oppose the President's plan and ask for its repeal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and accomplishments of a statesman and a friend, former Member of Congress Norman ``Norm'' F. Lent, who passed away on June 11th.

Norm was born March 23, 1931 in Oceanside, NY on Long Island. He graduated from Hofstra University in 1952 and in 1957 got his law degree from Cornell University. After serving in the Navy for two years and achieving the rank of Lieutenant, Norm worked as a lawyer in private practice in Lynbrook, New York beginning in 1957, and served as an Associate Police Justice in East Rockaway in 1959-60. He then worked as the Confidential Law Secretary (law clerk) to New York State Supreme Court Justice Thomas P. Farley from 1960-62.

After leaving the private sector in 1962, Lent was elected to the New York State Senate from Nassau County, and served from 1963 until 1970, when he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.

During his long tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives, Norm served on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, ultimately becoming the ranking minority member of both committees often being cited as a ``key player in environmental and energy legislation.''

To Norm's wife Barbara and children, Barbara and Norman we extend our deepest sympathies.

Norm truly made an indelible mark on our nation and he leaves a proud and distinguished legacy. Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the U.S. House of Representatives join me in recognizing Norman Lents' years of service and dedication to his community, state and our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 717, I call up the conference report on 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the conference report to accompany H.R. 4348.

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

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, it has indeed been a very bumpy road to get to this point where we could pass a transportation bill.

First, I have to thank my colleagues. I want to particularly thank the Speaker of the House of Representatives who stuck by me, who insisted that we pass this legislation that we worked on together in the best interest of the people of the United States, particularly in a time when people have lost their jobs, particularly at a time where the construction industry is at its lowest point in probably our history, and particularly at a time when it's important for Congress to act, not just to talk about problems that we have, but to get things done in the best interest of the people of the United States.

So I want to thank first the Speaker. I want to thank my colleagues who participated. I want to thank the staff who have been up almost nonstop for 2 weeks day and night trying to help wrap this up.

I'm not particularly pleased with some of the twists and turns. Let me say, first of all, my predecessor Mr. Oberstar, I regret that he was not able to achieve what we've achieved. He was undermined, unfortunately, by this administration to pass a bill. I tried to help him to pass a bill, not for partisan reasons or political reasons, but, again, for the people that we represent and trying to get this country, the economy moving forward. They had to pass six extensions. I was forced to pass three. But we're here today because so many people worked so hard.

One of the funniest things that happened to me during the passage of this bill--and you know that people have been kind of tough on me during this process--is I came to the floor one morning after a particularly tough time, and a staffer looked at me and he said, Mr. Mica, your shirt is awfully clean. He looked at my shirt, opened

my coat, and he said, Your shirt is awfully clean.

I said, What do you mean?

He said, For someone that's been thrown under the bus so many times, you don't have many tire tracks on you.

One of the light moments in this process.

But you know what you have to do is, when they throw you under the bus, you get up, you right yourself, you dust yourself off, and then you gain even more determination to win and get the job done. And that's what we're doing today.

Today we're passing a bill, again, that the other side couldn't pass when they had complete control of the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. We're passing this today, ironically, in the week that they passed the first transportation bill in Congress, and it was signed into law back in June of 1956.

This isn't the bill that exactly I would like, but this is a bill that, first of all, has the most historic reforms in the Federal participation in transportation programs in its history, since its adoption back in 1956. Those reforms are included, and there is a dramatic change in consolidation of some of the programs that mushroomed. Government mushrooms. Nobody does anything about reining in the size of government. This bill does something about that.

This bill takes the plea that we've heard from Beckley, West Virginia, to the west coast, from sea to shining sea in an unprecedented number of hearings across the country. And people said the whole paperwork process, red tape of Federal Government involved in transportation projects has to be changed. And we change it here for the first time historically, dramatically reducing the time that it takes to permit and go forward with a project, dramatically reducing the cost, dramatically reducing the mandates, increasing the flexibility for local government. So we have a streamlining process, unprecedented.

Now, this wasn't easy to do because my previous chairmen--and one of them that, at least, is here--they had a little thing called earmarks. In fact, the last bill had 6,300 earmarks. And you see, my hands are behind my back. I don't have them tied, but I didn't have the ability to pass out earmarks and the other little goodies in this bill. Instead, we had to focus on policy. And this is good policy. This is good policy for transportation safety. This is good policy for, again, reforms, and it's good policy for moving forward projects across the country and putting people to work.

``Shovel-ready'' will no longer be a joke. The administration, when they tried the stimulus dollars to throw that money out there, 35 percent was left in the Federal Treasury 2\1/2\ years after we passed the bill because ``shovel-ready'' even made the President and others cringe at the thought of how Federal red tape and paperwork stops projects in their progress.

So those are some of the reforms.

I'm grateful, again, for all that helped us move in a positive bipartisan direction.

I want to compliment Senator Boxer. She and I are probably like oil and water when it comes to political philosophy, but we joined together, like everyone should do, to get the people's work done and to get people working in the United States and pass this long overdue legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), who does a wonderful job chairing and leading the Highways Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chair of the Science, Space and Technology Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the distinguished chair of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), one of the leaders of our committee and the chair of the Rail Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to one of the distinguished leaders in the House, the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), who had a great deal to do with the flood insurance provisions--worked tirelessly.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to one of the leaders of transportation, new on the committee, but a conferee; did an outstanding job, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), who has worked very hard for a provision, and she's going to explaining the situation that brings her here at this point.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler), another conferee and a young leader in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman from West Virginia is ready to close, I am ready to close, also.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is good to be at this point in the completion of a long overdue, major transportation reform bill for the Congress and for the American people.

First, I will take a moment and thank our staff:

Jim Tymon, who is next to me here, is the tireless staff director of the Highway Subcommittee. He is day and night helping to sort things out, looking out for the people and making certain this bill has the very best provisions; Dan Veoni; Shant Boyajian; Geoff Strobeck; Joyce Rose; Fred Miller; Steve Martinko; Justin Harclerode, who is my press secretary, or assistant. He has always had to explain what I've said or at least clarify; Jason Rosa; my sidekick, Clint Hines, who has followed me on the floor with so many member requests; Jennifer Hall, our outstanding legal counsel; Amy Smith has some real firepower for good policy for the country and for transportation for the Nation; and then our untiring leader of the committee, Jim Coon, our staff director, who day and night neglected his beautiful family for the benefit of the people of this country;

Then we even retired Jimmy Miller in the process, who headed this up for many, many years in the service to our Nation and the committee. He retired in the process, hopefully not as a result of all the hard work. He is a great American;

Then there is Stephanie Kopelousos, who was on our team for a while. She is the former Secretary of Transportation from Florida, and she organized the Secretaries around the United States--I think the forward-thinking ones--to help us go through the laws and all the mess that we've created and redline it and get rid of the bureaucracy, the duplication, the costly red tape.

So our hats are off to all of them and to so many more and to all of our distinguished colleagues who were conferees who worked on this.

We actually engaged members in discussion, which is a new approach to a conference committee. We did that, but I'm sorry the other side was thrown under the bus, some by the administration, and particularly Mr. Oberstar, for whom I feel so bad because he waited so long and could never see this day. Then, in the process, we did not draft the legislation; Ms. Boxer's staff did. So, again, if there was anyone who felt that he didn't participate enough, I tried not to be responsible for that approach in having started, as I said, the first hearing in Beckley, West Virginia, Mr. Rahall's hometown, going all the way to the west coast to have an unprecedented, historic bipartisan and bicameral hearing in California with Barbara Boxer, who chaired the conference committee.

So this is where we are. Tomorrow would actually close down thousands of transportation projects. Departments of Transportation around the country were on the verge of actually giving sort of IOUs or of giving notification to close down, and probably millions would have been put out of work if we hadn't acted. So this is very important for the American people, particularly at this time when we're on the cusp of not knowing which way the economy is going to go, but it has to go forward.

There are some things in here that are also great: the RESTORE Act; student loans from which our students will benefit; national flood insurance from which people in my States and others will see reductions; transportation safety was paramount; there was a consolidation of some of the programs, streamlining, cutting red tape. We were able to do more with less and move transportation forward for the Nation.

Again, I thank everyone for their cooperation. I am pleased that we've reached this point. It doesn't have everything, and a lot of people said it couldn't be done. As my son often says--and I'll close with his remarks, and he likes the Cable Guy--``Dad, git-r-done.''

Son, we got-r-done today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

When the Founding Fathers created our government and established the committees in Congress, they had authorizing committees and they had appropriating committees. In 1808, the predecessor of this committee was established for a fundamental reason, and that's to make certain that programs and funding were properly executed and used by agencies created by Congress.

Congress created the law that created the Department of Justice. Congress funded the programs that are under the Department of Justice. It's our responsibility to investigate when things go wrong. And things went wrong. An agent of the United States was murdered with weapons which were funded by the agency that we created.

All we have asked for is the documents. All we want are the facts, and we have been thwarted. Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, the highest judicial enforcement officer of the United States, has been in contempt, is in contempt, and is showing contempt for the Congress and the responsibility under the Constitution of this important committee of Congress.

I urge adoption of the contempt resolution against the Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute today to a good friend and national leader for tourism, Mr. Gary C. Sain. Gary passed away unexpectedly on Friday, May 4th after addressing a dinner event in support of the Central Florida Boys and Girls Club, which was one of his community efforts, where he provided vital leadership in support of our youth. I was at that event and spoke to Gary as he shared his excitement about Central Florida

being the leading national tourist destination. Everyone in our region will testify that we have never had a better champion for tourism in Central Florida.

Gary began his career in the hotel industry and held positions at several of the hotel industry's top brands for more than 40 years. He diversified his career to the cruise industry, serving as marketing director for one of the industry's top brands. As a well-respected marketing expert, Gary then went to work for a top international hospitality marketing agency. In February 2007 Gary was selected to chief executive of Visit Orlando.

As the leader of the organization that markets and sells the Orlando area as the number one family leisure destination in the world, and one of the top meetings and convention destinations in America, Gary is credited with Orlando reaching a record 51.5 million visitors in 2010, the first U.S. destination to surpass the 50 million visitor milestone. In 2011 Orlando set another record with more than 55 million visitors.

Gary sat on national and international boards of directors including the U.S. Travel Association, Visit Florida, Destination Marketing Association International and Meeting Planners International. He was a resource for members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, providing information on travel issues affecting America domestically and internationally. Gary was a great husband to Pam and the proud father to two lovely daughters, Olivia and Vanessa. He remains with us in sprit, fond memory and appreciation for sharing his friendship.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the life and memory of Gary C. Sain.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of the Montford Point Marines and the sacrifices they made in service to our Nation.

The Montford Point Marines were the first African-Americans to serve in the United States Marine Corps. The United States of America owes these heroes a debt of honor that can never be repaid.

In June of 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt issued an Executive Order that opened the doors for African-Americans to enlist in the United States Marine Corps. Between 1942 and 1949, approximately 20,000 African Americans earned the right to call themselves Marines at Camp Montford Point in Jacksonville, North Carolina. Today, we honor them.

I would especially like to recognize a few of the surviving members of the Florida Chapter of the Montford Point Marines. I would like to commend Marines Wilfred Carr of Palm Coast; Eli Graham, Jr. of Daytona Beach; James Huger of Daytona Beach; James Sharpe of Palm Coast; Robert Blanks of Orange City; and John Steele of Daytona Beach who have all helped keep the memory and service of the Montford Point Marine's alive in the State of Florida.

The Congressional Gold Medal is a fitting tribute to the Montford Point Marines. It not only serves as an appropriate tribute to these trailblazing heroes, but also marks our Nation's endeavor toward a more perfect union, and I am pleased to offer my support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the service of one of this body's most able, dedicated and respected employees, James R. ``Jimmy'' Miller.

After 53 years of combined service here on Capitol Hill and a distinguished career in the United States Air Force, Jimmy is retiring from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. Miller has ensured the smooth operation of the Committee's hearings, meetings, and functions for decades. And he has been the person that Committee Members and staff have gone to when we simply needed to get something done, because no one else has a better understanding of how the House of Representatives functions on a daily basis.

It has been said that every committee has a Jimmy Miller, but Transportation has THE Jimmy Miller.

Jimmy has been much more than a long-serving staffer; he has been a trusted friend to me, to other Members of Congress, and to his countless Hill colleagues for more than 30 years. While his family is undoubtedly happy they'll be seeing more of him in the coming days, we on Capitol Hill will feel his considerable absence.

Jimmy's service to our country began when he joined the United States Air Force in 1959, where he rose to the rank of Command Sergeant Major, the highest rank possible for an enlisted airman.

During his 28 years of distinguished service in the Air Force, Jimmy served under three Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Earle Wheeler, General George Brown, and General David C. Jones.

In 1980, Command Sergeant Major Miller became the Air Force legislative liaison to the House of Representatives.

In 1987, he retired from the Air Force and was subsequently appointed by Chairman Bob Roe to join the staff of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. Jimmy then came with Chairman Roe to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation in 1991.

Jimmy has shepherded numerous delegations of U.S. officials to meetings with their foreign counterparts all over the world. He has crossed the globe more times than most people, having been to more than 170 countries, and he has established many friendships along the way.

Jimmy embodied a bipartisan spirit over the years, serving under six chairmen, Republicans and Democrats alike. In fact, Jimmy insisted that he equally serve all the Members of the Committee, regardless of which party led the House.

Jimmy accorded all of us on the Hill with the same respect over the years, whether we've wielded a gavel or a paintbrush, and we all admire his humble professionalism and dedication.

Jimmy was born on August 22, 1940 to Alyce and Robert Miller in Paulding, Ohio and was one of nine children. His parents instilled in them the values of family, God, and country and helped shape their children's personal lives and their public citizenship.

Even with all of his successes, including meeting many of the world's leaders, Jimmy's most important achievement has been his own family. He has been a caring, loving, and proud father to his children, Kim, Bob, Chris, and Shawn. I know Jimmy is looking forward to spending more time with his four children, nine grandchildren, one great grandson, and his wife Peg.

I will personally miss Jimmy. I consider him a close friend and I know that the House of Representatives will miss him. On behalf of this body, which he has served so well, I want to thank Jimmy for his dedicated service to our Nation and wish him a happy and healthy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and all of our colleagues to join in thanking Jimmy Miller for his years of service to the House of Representatives and our Nation. We wish him a wonderful retirement and want him to know we all appreciate his service and friendship.

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

Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I had intended to offer an amendment at this stage in the proceedings, but I'm not going to do it at this time because I have received some cooperation from the Appropriations Committee, and I want to thank Chairman Aderholt and the staff and others for including in this DHS bill some reforms of TSA that are long overdue.

The gentleman from Georgia just mentioned that this is an agency that is out of control, and it is important that we as Members of Congress try to get agencies that spin out of control under control, and that's, I think, what we're attempting to do here.

Let me say about this process, this is an incredible process and it's an open process, and so I thank our side of the aisle for allowing Members to have these opportunities.

We were closed off from many opportunities in the past to make these changes that are necessary in reforming agencies like TSA.

Well, let me say what they have done in this bill that is important, and one reason I'm going to support the bill--they need to go a lot further than they've gone, but one reason I'm going to support the bill is they have taken some opportunity to cut some of the administrative overhead.

Listen to this: TSA has grown to 65,000 employees. Of that, there are 14,000 administrative personnel--4,000 in Washington, D.C., not very far from us, 4,000 making on average--and they've got the statistics right here, the staff will give them to you--$104,000 on average per administrative person. Ten thousand administrative people out in the field. So this bill does reduce--I believe it's by about $60 million-- some of that administrative overhead. That's only the beginning, but at least it's a beginning.

This bill also cuts out programs that have failed, like the Behavior Detection Program. It reduces some of the spending there--another program that doesn't work that we need to cut funds on. It does redirect some money. And I must congratulate the committee for restoring the flight deck officer cuts.

The Obama administration proposed disarming our pilots, 50 percent of that program--volunteer pilots who pay their own way to learn how to arm themselves to protect their aircraft, themselves, and their passengers; one of the most cost-effective programs we had. I guess that would be the way that the Obama administration goes. You want to keep the bureaucracy but do away with cost-effective programs. But thank you, committee members and staff, for restoring that.

So almost every proposal we made from the Transportation Committee for cuts and reassignment of funds have been made here--not to the degree I would like, but at least I will say it's a beginning.

Finally, let me say that we've got to do something to further get this agency under control. Last week, we learned a little bit about a meltdown in security at one of my Florida airports, Fort Myers. We got some information because we get tips all the time. Everybody tells us what's going on at TSA--except the TSA bureaucrats that are trying to protect their positions. You know, they waited until Friday afternoon and released a one-paragraph statement pooh-poohing what had taken place at Fort Myers and keeping our committee in the dark, trying to keep it from the public and the press and from Congress.

I took the opportunity to let the press and the public know what I knew--which wasn't much. And thank goodness for a free and open press because they went after TSA. We found out Monday morning, along with everyone else, what they had done in not providing accurate information, not telling us it was one of the most serious of meltdowns of TSA personnel. And we've had them before in Newark and Charlotte, we've had them in New York City and others. So this is an agency that's out of control. We need to cut the bureaucracy, as they've begun to do here. We need to realign where the moneys need to be spent.

I have no problem with spending money for security and making certain that terrorists don't take advantage of our most vulnerable Achilles' heel in the transportation network, and for the American public, that's aviation. We've seen them go after it again and again. But you need to spend the money where it makes the most sense and does the most as far as true aviation security. Expensive aviation theater security is not the way we're going to go.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you so much, Mr. Culberson, for yielding to me. I appreciate the gentleman yielding for the purpose of this colloquy.

Madam Chairman, as you may know, the new Veterans' Administration Medical Center under construction in central Florida has experienced some serious delays and possible cost overruns that have raised significant concerns for Florida veterans who have earned and deserve this facility.

With Florida's growing veteran population and more veterans returning to our State from current conflicts, this facility is, in fact, key to keeping our pledge to aid those who served our Nation. It is important to clearly state the intent and the serious commitment of Congress that this new facility should be completed as soon as possible, and also make certain that we do everything in our power to ensure that the Federal resources necessary are available to complete that project.

Is this your intent?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Well, thank you. And I'm so appreciative of your commitment and support. This is very important to our veterans, and we are most appreciative of the commitment you've made to central Florida and those that have served our Nation, not only on this, but all the projects.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4097) to amend the John F. Kennedy Center Act to authorize appropriations for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4097.

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

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, today I am pleased to stand before you and offer for consideration of the House H.R. 4097, which would reauthorize the John F. Kennedy Center through 2014.

Everyone knows the Kennedy Center. It is one of the most outstanding national and cultural treasures that we have in our Capital City. I am pleased to be the sponsor of what I consider important legislation for several reasons.

First of all, in Congress, we get to do some exciting things. As chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, within our committee we have six subcommittees, and one does oversee public buildings. We've had a lot of public consternation--and rightfully so-- with some of our public buildings programs under the General Services Administration. I was home last week, and everybody in America recalls the guy in the hot tub thumbing his nose at Congress and the taxpayers. That's a bad example of behavior and wasteful expenditures of taxpayers' dollars. But I'm pleased to be here to say that there are many in government that do have programs that are very beneficial for the country, and one is the Kennedy Center. What an incredible institution.

As the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I get to sit on their board of trustees. Actually, I've gone to their meetings and see how they operate. Most people don't know, but most of their programs are funded through private donations, not public donations, although the building does stay under the responsibility of the Federal Government.

A lot of folks don't know a lot about the history of the Kennedy Center. The Kennedy Center--and I learned this being on the board--was actually an idea of a Republican President. Dwight David Eisenhower, in the 1950s, was determined to create a national cultural center in our Nation's Capital. This center was the idea and the genesis of one of our Presidents. Probably most people don't know that. I learned that in the rededication of the Eisenhower Theater within the Kennedy Center. After many years, it was renovated, again, mostly through private funds and donations.

I actually saw an old clip of President Eisenhower when he came up with a plan for a national cultural center. Subsequently after that, of course, we had the assassination of our beloved President Kennedy. In 1964, they began work. In 1971, they actually opened the center and named it the Kennedy Center in honor of our late President. But a little bit about the history.

I'm also excited about this proposal because this legislation authorizes one of the first additions I know of. I know we've done some repairs and some renovations, but we're actually talking about an addition to the Kennedy Center, and it's going to be funded with private money. Only private funds will be raised for this. So it's exciting to see a public-private partnership and the great leadership of the Kennedy Center.

I have to pay a little bit of tribute to Michael Kaiser, the president. This guy works day and night to make everything happen at the Kennedy Center. And he, of course, reports to the chairman of the board, who is David Rubenstein. He does a magnificent job corralling some of the leaders of our Nation, those in business and free enterprise that come in and through their donations support the Kennedy Center.

It's incredible--Washington, D.C. programs. It truly has made the Nation's Capital a center for a whole host of cultural activities-- dance and theater and symphonic music, and the list goes on and on. And many people across the Nation get to see it in their own living rooms. They don't always get to come to our Nation's Capital, but we've seen those performances that are televised. So it is a rich part of our Nation's Capital, and certainly a rich part of our Nation's culture, and we are now seeing for the first time an addition.

This addition will support the center's educational mission, and that's very important. It will be a benefit, again, both for Washington, D.C., our Nation's Capital, and for the Nation. And internationally they have programs today. The purpose of the expansion is to provide improved facilities of the Kennedy Center by adding approximately 56,000 square feet of space for classrooms, rehearsal rooms, event spaces, and offices. And for the first time, they will have a dedicated area for educational purposes, as I've outlined; other rehearsals and other functions and activities and things that don't fit into some of the theater and some of the existing facilities that they have already in the main building. So the expansion will permit the center to address its growing needs and provide greater accessibility for the center's programs and performances for the general public.

So I'm pretty excited about this proposal. Most people don't know that we worked some years, 15 years, on the visitors center. We also were raising funds. Part of the construction of that visitors center was raising funds privately. Most people wouldn't know that the author of the visitors center was Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, who made an agreement that half the funds would be raised privately for that visitors center here at the Capitol, and also some public funds. Of course, all that changed with September 11, when the Capitol was attacked and our Nation was attacked, and we had to make some dramatic changes in that whole funding, and security issues that were raised there. But, like the visitors center, we're raising funds. This is totally, again, the private sector that is building this facility and great addition to the Kennedy Center.

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

In closing, again, I think this is a very significant piece of legislation that does authorize the first addition that I know of to the Kennedy Center. Not only does it do that, it does it with the whole expansion being done with private funds. But we do have to authorize that. Again, the Federal Government is the custodian and trustee of the center.

Also, I think this bill is brought forward in a fiscally responsible approach for maintaining the facility, and we authorize the capital repair and maintenance program for the Kennedy Center at the requested level, and also in a reduction from current spending levels.

So whether it's the cultural center of the Nation, the Kennedy Center, and all other government programs either partially funded, like this, or publicly funded, we've got to do more with less taxpayers' money in a responsible fashion. This legislation does that, and I'm pleased to offer it for consideration of the House.

I urge my colleagues to support passage of this measure.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 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, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference requested by the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I want to take a little bit of time to explain to you and my colleagues and others who may be listening to this debate about what's happening now. The other side of the aisle has just offered a motion to instruct, and we're going to conference on an important piece of legislation. That's the transportation bill that sets the transportation policy for the United States of America.

For all of our transportation projects, those projects that would be eligible, we identify the terms of participation for States and local governments and everyone who is going to receive Federal funds for transportation projects. So all of that is very important.

It is important that we put people to work. When I go back home, I talk to

people who lost their house, lost their job, and they want an opportunity to work. And you heard that, in fact, there have been nine amendments since the bill expired, and six of those extensions were passed under the Democrats. I've had to do three.

They had complete control of the U.S. House of Representatives, the United States Senate, and the White House, and still had to pass six extensions. Then I learned from our staff that they did not pass a single free-standing extension.

Before we left for Easter, I passed a freestanding extension to get us so that we wouldn't close down jobs, that we wouldn't stop contracts, that we wouldn't stop people working. Now they're asking us to take the Senate carte blanche, a proposal which was adopted by the Senate--not a total vote, but it was a bipartisan vote--and just adopt it in their motion to instruct.

Now, Madam Speaker, I just got through explaining the Constitution to a wonderful group of young people from the Stetson Baptist Christian School in DeLand, Florida, on the steps just a few steps from here-- right out that door and down those steps--and they stood there. I explained to them that the Founding Fathers created two Houses. The first body that they created, most importantly, the Congress of the United States, a legislative branch with a House and, yes, young people and teachers and chaperones that were listening, and I said also with the Senate.

They did that because they wanted all of those opinions to come together and they wanted us to work, again, in a bipartisan fashion to come up with the best possible solution. Yes, they'd operated with Articles of Confederation with a unicameral government, but last time I checked down the hall, I think if we open those doors and look down there, there is the United States Senate, and this is the people's House of Representatives.

I also explained to the students, this is the only body in which the Members actually have to be elected. Everybody else can be appointed. The Senators can be appointed. The President, actually you could replace him by appointment, the Vice President. But the only Federal representative that they have is the House of Representatives.

But what they want to do is cast the participation of the House of Representatives aside and just adopt what the Senate has brought forward. I tell you that the House has worked hard.

Now, I didn't have the benefit of 6,300 earmarks, which my predecessor had, to pass a bill, so it's taken me a little bit longer, and a few days ago we did pass a bill. It wasn't a bill that we passed out of committee, H.R. 7, with all the Republican votes but one, and we tried to bring to the House. It wasn't the vote that we heard in committee for some 18 hours, most of the time consumed not with Republican amendments but with Democrat amendments, over a hundred Democrat amendments, and I said we're going to sit there as long as it takes and give everyone an opportunity to participate in this free and open process, which we are doing here. Today they propose closing down that free and open process. Let's just adopt what the Senate tossed over to us.

I say ``no,'' and I say ``no'' for a whole host of reasons. The Senate proposal is a proposal that will bankrupt the trust fund. The Senate proposal is a path to just building paths, to resurfacing, to short-term jobs, not answering the call of the people who sent us here to make certain that their transportation money, when they go fill up their gas tank, pay for 1 gallon of gas, 18.4 cents comes to Washington in the trust fund, and we spend it. That's what this sets the policy for, what's eligible for receiving those Federal dollars.

But we'll just forget there's a House of Representatives and cast that body aside. I think not.

I think even an eighth-grader from one of my schools at home can figure this out, Madam Speaker, and I just can't agree with this motion to recommit.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, who also chairs the Highways Subcommittee, Mr. Duncan.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a gentleman who has authored one of the major amendments to the legislation that passed, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to one of the outstanding new members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).

I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the chair of the Rail Subcommittee, the distinguished member of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to one of our star new members of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to one of the senior members of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, at this time I have no further requests for time, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

I started out talking about how it's important for the legislative process to properly be fulfilled under the terms of the Constitution and separation of responsibilities in the legislative body. This motion, of course, would close all of that down. We'd accept what the Senate has done without all of the work many Members have put into it. And I didn't go to Webster Springs, but I did go to Beckley, West Virginia, where we held the first meeting to allow the other side of the aisle to present at the very first of these deliberations their viewpoint and their recommendations for trying to pass a long-term transportation bill.

We took many of those--as you heard, 60 percent of the recommendations form the other side. We took 100 amendments, considered them, and passed 20 during 18 hours of marking up and considering the bill. So we've tried to make this a bipartisan process and a full process that everyone gets to participate in. But now they're here telling us that we don't want the House to participate any further, and just take the Senate bill and go along.

Now they, of course, passed six extensions, short term, keeping things in turmoil during--I think we calculated about 14 months. I've had to do three in about the same period of time. The difference is, I didn't have 6,300 earmarks, I didn't control the other body or that house downtown, what do they call it? The White House. But they controlled them all, all the branches, and they couldn't git 'er done.

So, the Senate bill does not set a threshold on some of these environmental approvals that tie us up. And no one wants to step over any good environmental provisions. What we want to do is shorten a little bit the time that these things go under consideration. They go on and on. You heard Mr. Ribble talk: 15 years to approve some of the projects in his district, 7 years on average for simple processing if the Federal Government gets involved. And we keep repeating the same thing. You heard the speaker say it's like Groundhog Day around here, and we've got to stop the Groundhog Day, and we could do that by having the House provisions adopted.

There are a whole host of things wrong with the Senate bill, and I won't get into them. And I know it's been a bumpy road to get here. I've told folks that when I became chairman--and I think the ranking member, when he became ranking member, neither of us was handed an operating manual. So this has been a bumpy road to get here, and it is a difficult process, but we tried to include everyone in that process and come up with the best suggestions and recommendations.

Mr. Ribble's amendment, which is to streamline provisions of H.R. 7, is excellent. Well, we'll get more for less, and we can do it responsibly. Mr. Boustany from Louisiana's amendment getting the Highway Maintenance Trust Fund to get funds that are collected for improvement of the ports--actually they improve our ports that are so important to infrastructure. So there are many good provisions in our legislation. It's not what I would have exactly crafted or passed in the very beginning or brought out here, but it is a vehicle so that everybody can have consideration who has participated in this process.

So I submit to you, although it's been a bumpy road with some twists and turns--we didn't expect that the Senate bill is a path to fewer jobs; it's a path to fewer projects actually getting done. It's a path to build only paths, if you want to look at it that way. Unfortunately, it's also a path to a dead end for transportation.

So, I submit, Madam Speaker, that we take a different road, that we take a road to where we'll have more jobs. We could do more with less, and we can, I think, do a lot more for the American people in a very difficult time in our history in moving this great country forward and building our infrastructure.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I have to be a little bit more verbose. Would you allow me additional time?

When I took over as ranking member and we had sort of a rank way in which earmarks were done, I cleaned up the process. I think earmarks, there can be bad legislative earmarks and bad administrative earmarks. When they're done behind closed doors, they're not properly vetted, they're not transparent, and they haven't had the sunshine, the antiseptic sunshine to let people know what's going on and they're not a worthwhile project that has true support, they shouldn't be considered, whether by the administration or legislatively. I think that we have a moratorium now, and I'd like to see a different way to present those requests. I think fundamentally under Article I of the Constitution, I think it's section 2, we should, as the House of Representatives, and we do earmark, even if we just put one line in that says that we'll turn all this money and responsibility over to the administration--that is an earmark. But we can do, and we should do better.

Will the gentleman yield for one question?

Last week, I think it was, you had come to the floor and asked me to sign a letter to the Speaker to appoint conferees and to go to conference. That's correct?

And then we signed that and we sent it to the Speaker. It has gone to the Speaker. So now we're doing that, and now you're asking me to go to conference and roll over and play dead?

Will the gentleman yield?

I thought this motion to recommit was to accept the Senate position. So we're getting it to conference. Didn't I pass a motion to go to conference? So now what? You're asking me to just, okay, surrender, it's all over?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Larry Godwin, a wonderful friend of nearly four decades.

Larry lost his most recent battle with cancer on Thursday, April 12, 2012. With his passing, his family lost someone they loved, our community lost a leader and our country lost a true patriot.

It was my good fortune to have met Larry when we were active in the Winter Park Jaycees and in other community activities nearly 40 years ago. When you met Larry Godwin, you knew you were talking to someone with purpose, determination and principle. Successful in real estate, he also made his mark in politics and never paused in his commitment to good government. As a successful entrepreneur, he was part of that special formula that allowed Larry and our nation to be successful and great.

During one of his early visits to Washington for cancer treatment, I still remember his determination to fight on and survive that most dreaded and cruel disease. I will remember his faith, his love of family and that impish grin that, if you knew Larry, was never to be forgotten. So today, along with, I know, dozens of former Winter Park Jaycee buddies, we all salute and say a fond farewell to a special friend.

Mr. Speaker, today, April 19, 2012, in honor of Larry Godwin's memory, service to our nation and final services, I have asked the Architect of the Capitol to fly an American Flag over the U.S. Capitol Building.

Finally, to his family and especially his son Robbie, I extend my very deepest sympathy. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the life and memory of Larry Godwin.

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.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

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.

Thank you for yielding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, March 29, 2012.

Hon. John Mica,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

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

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

scheduled for floor consideration this week.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has

jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Code. Title IV of this

bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by extending

the current Highway Trust Fund expenditure authority and the

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

order to expedite this legislation for floor consideration,

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

done with the understanding that it does not in any way

prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of

conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or

similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

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

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

included in the Congressional Record during floor

consideration.

Sincerely,

Dave Camp,

Chairman.

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

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

List of Transportation Extensions

Extension #1: A Democratic controlled House passed

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

31/2009.

Extension #2: A Democratic controlled House passed

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

12/18/2009.

Extension #3: A Democratic controlled House passed

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

28/2010.

Extension #4: A Democratic controlled House passed

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

2010.

Extension #5: A Democratic controlled House passed

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

31/2010.

Extension #6: A Democratic controlled House passed

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

2011.

Extension #7: A Republican controlled House passed

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

2011.

Extension #8: A Republican controlled House passed

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

31/2012.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

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

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

Don't play politics with investments in our infrastructure,

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

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

on October 1 and walk away from your obligation to extend

this program.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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