Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Pompeo, to eliminate funding for the Economic Development Administration (EDA).

The importance of EDA cannot be overstated. Established in 1965, EDA empowers economically distressed communities, among them communities that I represent, to develop and revitalize their economies based on their needs and resources. These funds allow rural communities to be active participants in today's economy by helping to create and retain jobs.

The EDA underwrites basic infrastructure needs, such as water and sewer systems and the expansion of broadband services that help to attract jobs and stimulate economic development. While much of the Nation takes for granted the ability to turn on the faucet and have clean drinking water flow out, countless families in rural America do not. For them, answering such a basic human need is a daily struggle. For them, the EDA is a Godsend.

EDA funding has helped to provide the needed infrastructure for development of industrial parks in my State. These up-to-date facilities create modern spaces that enable existing local businesses to grow and entice other businesses to locate to these livable, rural towns that boast ready workforces.

Those who would undo EDA surely cannot understand what a huge difference the seed money it provides is making in our tough economic times. They must not have seen how it expands the reach and effectiveness of educational institutions or leads to better employment for working men and women. They must not get how the relatively small investments the EDA makes are helping struggling communities to transform themselves into economic engines.

There is nothing frivolous about the EDA. This is an agency that is meat-and-potatoes government at its best. The funds it provides are not handouts. To the contrary, these are investments that are enabling our citizens to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

In addition to anecdotal stories though, EDA's success has been proven by an independent study that found that EDA investment in rural areas generates between 2.2 and 5 jobs per $10,000 in incremental EDA investment, translating to a cost of between $2,001 and $4,611 to produce a single job. As the Nation's economy emerges from the recession, EDA is one of the most efficient ways that the Federal government can assist in economic recovery and prevent another downturn.

I have seen firsthand the benefit of a coordinated effort of EDA investments. Between 2006 and 2011, EDA made 25 investments in my district totaling approximately $10 million. These projects are expected to help create approximately 1,125 jobs and help attract approximately $98.5 million in private investment.

I urge the House to recognize the value of EDA as a necessary component to revitalizing our economy, ensuring that the United States remains an economic force, and creating new jobs for American workers.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing Mr. Pompeo's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 3826, a bill that would prevent a sharp increase in interest rates on Direct Stafford Student loans beginning in July, I am very much opposed to playing politics with this important issue.

I do not believe we need to choose between cutting funds that provide much needed preventive health services and making college more affordable. I cannot understand the mentality that flirts with the idea of raising college costs and limiting access to health care for working middle-class families, while instinctively recoiling at the idea of closing tax loopholes for multinational conglomerates and the wealthiest Americans.

This is exactly what infuriates the American public and why Congressional approval ratings are at record lows. I understand it's an election year and each side wants to score points at the other side's expense but every time we get into one of these debates with competing proposals we know will split the Congress and lead to gridlock, it chips away at the credibility of the institution. We must find a way to summon the will to get beyond the temptation to take cheap shots at the other side and put the interests of the American people first.

Mr. Speaker, imagine one million pounds, 500 tons of prescription pills piled high on the National Mall. Those numbers and that image boggle the mind. And yet, in thirteen short months, that's just about the amount of leftover or expired drugs legions of concerned and compassionate Americans have turned in during the last three National Drug Take Back Days sponsored by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

That total may well be only the tip of the iceberg threatening our National ship of state. On this Saturday, April 28, 2012, the American people and every Member of Congress have the opportunity to strike a blow to rid our nation of the prescription drug abuse scourge that is ravaging so many of our families and communities. The DEA, along with almost 4,000 state and local law enforcement partners are, once again, sponsoring a National Drug Take Back Day.

This is a national call to action. Everyone can participate; everyone needs to participate, because one of the most insidious contributors to this growing epidemic lurks in every home bathroom.

``Ground Zero'' for Drug Take Back Day is each medicine cabinet in humble homes across the country. Participation is made simple by the vast number of drop-off points made available by our law enforcement professionals--over 5,300 sites in all 50 states of our nation.

A resounding and very clear message at the nation's first National Summit on Prescription Drug Abuse was made: one of the most cost effective, long-term measures we can take to turn the tide on prescription drug abuse is prevention. That effort starts in our own cabinets and cupboards.

Once described as America's ``Silent Epidemic,'' the abuse of prescription drugs can be openly witnessed any hour--day or night--on countless street comers across the country. Today, prescription drug abuse may be the biggest challenge of our society, and the only way its destructive trend can be reversed is if everyone--I mean, everyone-- gets involved.

We are traveling a difficult and challenging path to save an entire generation. But, events and action on a national level, like Drug Take Back Day, provide simple and effective solutions in our quest to conquer the problem of prescription drug abuse.

Let us act with dispatch and compassion and with an acute understanding of the enormity of the challenge before us. Working in partnership with law enforcement, not as vigilantes or self appointed marshals Drug Take Back Day is one of the simplest, most effective, prevention measures we have on our side.

Madam Chair, I recognize the need to address the threats posed to our Nation and the American economy in cyber

space, but I also believe we must be very careful in maintaining the appropriate balance between protecting our national security and preserving our civil liberties.

Given the concerns about this measure and the perceived threat to sensitive and personal information of American citizens, I believe that the House should take additional time to deliberate on this measure. The American public deserves an opportunity to gain a fuller understanding of the provisions included in this bill and how their daily lives may be affected by it.

For these reasons, I will oppose the bill.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

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

Madam Speaker, the long-term authorization of surface transportation programs expired on September 30, 2009. Since that time, Congress has enacted nine separate Surface Transportation Extension Acts, allowing us to continue limping along, patching together our Nation's surface transportation system. These short-term, start-and-stop Surface Transportation Extension Acts are undermining our surface transportation system.

Running these programs through short-term extensions creates tremendous uncertainty among State departments of transportation, public transit agencies, and highway and transit contractors that delay critical highway and transit projects, costing good-paying jobs each step of the way.

With more than 2.5 million construction and manufacturing workers still out of work, it is far past time for Congress to enact surface transportation legislation that will remove this uncertainty, create and sustain family-wage jobs, and restore our Nation's economic growth.

That's why I offer this motion today. We have an opportunity before us to move quickly to pass legislation that can remove this uncertainty and get America back to work.

Over a month ago, the Senate passed S. 1813, known as MAP 21, by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 74 22. Now, each of us in this body knows how difficult it is for the other body to agree on just about anything. But, unlike the House, the Senate was able to come together to pass bipartisan legislation that will provide States with the certainty that they need to move forward with highway and transit projects and get Americans back to work. It is time for the House, believe it or not, to follow the other body's lead and pass S. 1813.

Certainly, S. 1813 is not the exact bill that I would have written. However, the Senate bill is a dramatic improvement over what House Republicans proposed in their now-dead partisan reauthorization bill known as H.R. 7, which was reported by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, but never acted upon by the full House.

Last week, in an effort to facilitate a conference with the Senate on MAP 21, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4348, another surface transportation extension bill. I supported the House passage of H.R. 4348 as a vehicle to go to conference on the Senate bill.

I said then--taking Republicans at their word that they are serious about moving this process forward--passage of that short-term extension bill would allow us to quickly convene a conference with the Senate on its bipartisan, multiyear surface transportation reauthorization bill, which passed with the support of three-quarters of the other body.

A long-term bill will provide the certainty that States need to invest and proceed with their plans long on the books. It will provide the certainty that highway and transit contractors desperately need to give them the confidence to hire that one more worker. That is what surface transportation is all about, putting Americans back to work and sustaining our economic competitiveness.

If there are issues that we must change, we can address those through a technical corrections bill that will make the necessary policy changes to improve the bill. That is not unprecedented. We've done it before.

There is nothing to prevent the Congress from enacting S. 1813 and then continuing to work to develop further bicameral, bipartisan changes to further improve surface transportation programs and policies. But American workers should not have to wait any longer as Congress searches for agreement. The time for political games is over.

So my motion is simple, very simple. It instructs House conferees to agree to the Senate bill. Enactment of MAP 21 will put in place 18 months worth of funding, provide state DOTs and public transit agencies the certainty they need to advance projects, and provide contractors the certainty they need to hire that one more worker. Out-of-work Americans simply cannot wait any longer.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

In order to respond to the distinguished chairman, that's funny, and I appreciate the history lesson he's just given us on legislation in this body. It's funny, while you were speaking to students from your district, I was just speaking to students from my district outside on the Capitol steps as well. They happened to have been from Webster Junior High School from Webster Springs, West Virginia.

I explained to them the process that we're in right now going to conference on the transportation bill, how the other body had passed in a bipartisan fashion, the other body who can rarely agree on anything, including a resolution saying ``I love mother,'' but here they came together and passed a bill with 72 votes in a bipartisan fashion. I had explained to them briefly what the other body's bill did and what our bill did. That's funny. They were all nodding in agreement. They all said we ought to accept the Senate bill; go for the Senate bill.

So I guess the point I'm making is that we all know how this place works. We all know the difficulties in getting something through the other body where, like it or not, the Framers of our Constitution set it up so that the minority in that body has the power.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member on our Highways and Transit Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Railroads, the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Corrine Brown.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas, a valued member of our committee, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished ranking member on the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

May I inquire as to the time remaining?

I have the right to close debate?

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.

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

Madam Speaker, as I said in my opening comments, the Senate bill, MAP 21, is not the perfect bill. It's not the bill I would have written had I had

my druthers. And yet I hear several of my colleagues on the other side saying how stunned they are that I am not for the House bill and that I would be here offering a motion to accept, carte blanche, the other body's bill.

I'm sure those Members know how this process works, and before I just give them a brief lesson on that, let me repeat my words again from my opening comments: that the other body's bill is not perfect. If there are issues that we must change, we can address those through a technical corrections bill that will make the necessary policy changes to improve the bill. This is not unprecedented. We have done it before, I would say to my stunned colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

So there is nothing to prevent Congress from enacting S. 1813 and then continuing to work to develop further bicameral, bipartisan changes to further improve our surface transportation programs and policies. But the bottom line here, the bottom line here is that our American workers should not have to wait any longer as Congress searches for an agreement. The time for political games, the time for adding stuff to score political points, is over.

I would say, in addition, to my distinguished chairman from Florida, he appears to blame part of his problems, headaches, and troubles on his side of the aisle on the fact that we no longer have what are known as earmarks. Now, it seems to me his suggestion is that we reinstate that process known as earmarks whereby we, in this body, if it's so concerned about Members of the House having a say and doing our constitutional jobs, where we would have a legitimate input into the making of transportation policy by deciding those local projects that are best for our people, rather than leaving them to bureaucracies or to Presidents of the United States, regardless of who occupies that office.

So, last week, I asked my colleague to join me in a bipartisan manner in writing a letter, which he kindly agreed, to the Speaker urging an expeditious naming of conferees, which we've now done. That was a bipartisan letter signed by the big four in our committee. I would now ask him, again, in the spirit of bipartisanship, and I will yield him time if he's prepared to answer my question yes or no--yes or no--if he will join me in a bipartisan letter to the Speaker asking for the reinstatement of earmarks. Yes or no?

Yes, I'll yield.

I'll grant you 1 minute.

I appreciate the gentleman's response. Perhaps we ought to start drafting such a letter and see how far we get.

But let me conclude my part of the debate here, Madam Speaker, by reiterating what my motion is. It's simple, it's pure, it's clean, and it's straightforward. It instructs our conferees that we are appointing today to agree to the Senate bill.

That bill, known as MAP 21, provides a total of $109 billion in funding for fiscal years '12 and '13 for Federal highway, highway safety, and public transportation programs.

Among its other features, it continues current funding levels, it sustains approximately 1.9 million jobs on an annual basis, it provides continued dedicated financing for public transit from the highway trust fund--no more ``go fish'' with general appropriators on a yearly basis for our transit agencies. It continues and expands upon provisions developed during the last Surface Transportation Act to expedite project delivery without gutting environmental protections or limiting public participation.

I fear if you do either of the last two, you're only going to prolong the process through court battles because there will be court challenges that will go on beyond any approval process of the bureaucracy that may exist today.

The Senate bill also strengthens Buy America requirements that apply to Federal highway, transit, and rail capital projects by prohibiting the segmentation of such projects in order to avoid Buy America requirements. It ensures that the Department of Transportation periodically review existing nationwide waivers applicable to highway and rail projects. It requires DOT to justify any proposed waiver of the Buy America requirements, and it ensures that the American public has notice of an opportunity to comment on any proposed waiver prior to taking effect.

Finally, MAP 21's bipartisan financing package fully pays for the bill--fully pays for the bill, fully pays for the bill--by providing approximately $9.6 billion in new revenues into the highway trust fund.

This amount will fully pay for highway, transit, and highway safety programs authorized by the bill, and it will allow DOT to maintain a positive balance in both the highway and transit accounts of the highway trust fund at the end of the bill.

The bipartisan offsets do not add to the deficit because the general fund of the Treasury is also made whole for every dollar that's transferred into the highway trust fund.

So as I conclude, let me say that for these reasons I urge adoption of this motion.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Correct.

No, I'm not asking you to roll over and play dead. I'm saying that we ought to go to conference, accept the Senate bill. We can come back, as I've said now for the third or fourth time, and enact a technical corrections bill if there is something that we see in there that is drastically bad.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I've said many times during this debate that that's not the position of this gentleman that we roll over and play dead to the other body. I've said the other body is not the perfect bill. I've said that there are technical corrections we can change once we get a conference underway. Once we pass a conference committee bill, we can come back and make technical changes. That's not unprecedented in this body.

The important point here to remember is: no longer can we play these political games; no longer can we add extraneous stuff on a jobs bill such as this transportation bill to score political points for a certain wing of our party.

What we need to do, and the American people are demanding, this is the time that contracts are let for work--

not 90 days from now, not 180 days from now. This is springtime. This is time when the highway projects are let, and the American worker is waiting to know whether he or she will have a job this summer.

That's why I think every move should be made to get to conference expeditiously, to have that conference conclude its work and bring a bill back for both Houses of Congress to enact in order to provide that certainty to the American small businesses, to the American economy, to the American worker that he or she will have a job this summer. And that certainty should not wait around for us to decide whether we're going to roll over and play dead or not. That bill can be corrected, as we've done numerous times in this body, through technical changes once we have given that certainty to the American worker and to the American people.

It's for that reason that I urge that the House today approve this motion to instruct conferees as we go to conference on the transportation bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, on March 29, I introduced H.R. 4335, the Postal Service Accountability Act.

My bill would empower the independent postal regulator, the Postal Regulatory Commission, PRC, to block postal closures where the Postal Service, USPS, does not give sufficient attention to the undue burden a closure would have on a community.

Under current law, when the Postal Service is considering closing a post office, the affected public must be notified. The Postal Service opens a 60 day comment period, which includes a public meeting to allow local citizens a chance to voice their concerns. Once the public comment period closes, should the Postal Service decide to close a post office, the public has 30 days to appeal the decision to the Postal Regulatory Commission.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the PRC may fault the USPS' decision to close a post office only if the PRC finds the decision to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law; without observance of procedure required by law; or unsupported by substantial evidence on the record. The PRC may require the USPS to reconsider its decision, but the ultimate authority to close a post office rests with the USPS.

My bill would give the PRC a binding authority to block a post office closure. It would require the Postal Service to consider the economic impact of a closure on a community, and empower the PRC to set aside a determination that is unsupported by substantial evidence regarding projected savings, mail delivery services, and community and worker impact. In addition, the Postal Service would be required to perform an after-the-fact review one year after a closure and make public its findings to ensure mail delivery services have been maintained.

My bill also would apply the revised appeals process to postal sorting facilities. Currently, there is no appeals process for mail processing facilities.

As well, my measure would prevent the Postal Service from proceeding with a closure without the written concurrence of three commissioners, halting the dubious practice of affirming closures by tie votes.

These are modest and practical changes designed to ensure that the Postal Service approaches these closures with an open mind and listens respectfully and attentively to community opinion. At issue is the basic right of citizens of a community to be heard. It will help to guard against the bureaucratic mentality, which too often takes root in executive agencies, that agency officials know best. We must ensure that the Postal Service's actions are grounded in the best interests of the people it was created to serve.

In July 2011, when the Postal Service announced its Retail Access Optimization Initiative and its intention to study nearly 3,700 post offices nationwide for closure, including 85 in southern West Virginia, the Postal Service was already pursuing a host of closure studies for separate post offices, as well as the consolidation of postal sorting facilities, including eighteen post offices and three processing facilities in southern West Virginia.

Under the law, the Postal Service is required to consider the impact of a post office closure on a community, on the affected postal workers, and on mail delivery services. Federal law requires the USPS to ``provide a maximum degree of effective and regular postal services to rural areas, communities, and small towns where post offices are not self-sustaining.''

And, yet, there have been serious doubts raised about the Postal Service's adherence to these requirements. In its advisory opinion on the Postal Service's RA0I proposal, the PRC found that the Postal Service was unable to provide the data necessary to confirm its cost savings projections associated with the post offices proposed for closure. The Commission also expressed concerns about ensuring that alternatives are available to meet the needs of affected communities prior to a postal facility closure decision.

In a concurring opinion, the PRC chairman strongly rebuked the Postal Service's closure process, noting: ``The Commission has recently heard appeals on more than 60 individual post office closings. The records in these cases reveal a pattern of inaccurate and overly optimistic economic savings calculations and of careless disregard of community concerns. While the facts of those cases were not considered by the Commission in its Advisory Opinion, they nevertheless demonstrate an ongoing institutional bias within the Postal Service that presumes closing small post offices automatically provides cost savings and network efficiencies.''

The PRC's findings echo what I am hearing anecdotally from my constituents--that the public comment process is a perfunctory exercise--just for show--as the Postal Service

bulldozes ahead closing valued postal facilities for very little, if any, economic savings. This sentiment has become so frequent that it prompted me to contact the Postmaster General last October to question whether the public comment process is truly accomplishing its purpose, which is to give the public an opportunity to convey its views to the Postal Service and to give the Postal Service the opportunity to adjust its actions accordingly.

Within a two-month period last fall, the USPS Appalachian District scheduled more than 40 public meetings in southern West Virginia, raising doubts that the Postal Service can appropriately manage the public feedback received from each meeting and prepare for continued mail delivery should a closure occur.

In one case, residents said that their post office was closed before rural delivery was fully established. In other instances, public meetings have been scheduled at inconvenient times, like Halloween night, limiting public participation.

In 2009, as part of a separate closure process, the Postal Service issued an emergency suspension of the Hacker Valley Post Office in Webster County, West Virginia. I said at the time that the action was unwarranted and I was later validated in my concerns by the Postal Regulatory Commission. In response, the Postal Service offered to solicit for a Contract Postal Unit, CPU, in Hacker Valley, which would be operated by a supplier under contract with the Postal Service to provide retail postal services. After soliciting bids in March 2011, postal officials abruptly ended the process, requiring me to contact the Postal Service to remedy the matter, which it did.

What happened in Hacker Valley underscores the need to keep a close eye on the Postal Service's proposed closures. I am convinced that legitimate safety and convenience concerns of residents and businesses are not being sufficiently addressed--that many post offices' fates are predetermined and that the public comment process, in too many instances, has become a perfunctory step in the closure process, instead of being used to truly assess legitimate safety and convenience issues, and to take steps to minimize the adverse impact on the community.

I also question the criteria used to select post offices for a closure study, noting the conflict with the Postal Service's statutory charter that requires the Postal Service to provide ``a maximum degree of effective and regular postal services'' to rural communities where post offices are not self-sustaining, explicitly prohibiting small post offices from being closed solely for operating at a deficit.

Despite this requirement, the Postal Service has utilized computer- driven criteria in identifying retail facilities for closure. Three of the four criteria are financially based and clearly target small facilities that are not heavy revenue producers. As such, it is not surprising that there is a concentration of closings in rural areas, where computer-driven criteria cannot fully reflect the importance of a post office.

Clearly, the Postal Service has a responsibility to ensure its long- term fiscal solvency, but that must not happen at the expense of its public service obligations in ensuring universal mail services.

The Postal Service is not FedEx or UPS, which can pick and choose between profitable and unprofitable markets. Nowhere does the law waive the Postal Service's public service obligations if deficits run high. The Postal Service needs to look at other ways to become more profitable and competitive by improving and modernizing its services rather than cutting off rural customers.

Rural customers, more so than their urban counterparts, rely on the Postal Service for basic mail necessities--for sending bills and receiving checks, newspaper deliveries, and small businesses reaching customers--especially in areas where internet access is limited.

These closures will disrupt local economies and the lives of residents and businesses--from seniors who depend on the delivery of life-sustaining mail-order drugs, to the communities where the post office is the heart of the neighborhood--and there needs to be a better mechanism in place to ensure not only that public concerns are being addressed, but also that the public feels as though it is being heard. Some may want to view the Postal Service solely as a business, but it is still a public institution and it must remain responsive and accountable to the people.

The Congress must take action to reinforce the point, empowering an independent regulator to watch over the Postal Service to guard against overly optimistic savings projections and insufficient attention to community needs in the closure process.

I previously urged the Postmaster General to place a moratorium on postal closures until a practical and realistic plan for managing and responding to public concerns is provided to the American public. Subsequently, the Postal Service announced that it would delay any closings or consolidations until May 15, 2012. I recently wrote to the Postmaster General to ask that he extend the May 15 moratorium until the Congress has completed action on postal reform legislation.

In the coming weeks, the House is expected to consider such legislation. While I am opposed to the Committee reported bill in its current form, especially with regard to its eliminating six-day delivery and potentially expediting the closure process, I am hopeful that the House will consider and pass legislation that will help ensure that our small, rural postal facilities are not made to bear the brunt of the Postal Service's nationwide budgetary challenges. I urge the House leadership to act expeditiously.

Mr. Speaker, I support tax and regulatory policies that help small businesses attract investment and create jobs, but I also believe that we in the Congress must be responsible stewards of taxpayer funds.

I voted against H.R. 9 because it would spend an enormous amount of money without any requirements that the funds be invested in job creation or even invested in the American economy. Any company that receives the tax benefit provided by this bill could use it to bolster profits while laying off workers and shipping American jobs overseas. Half of the tax breaks would go to only 0.3 percent of taxpayers, those with incomes exceeding $1 million, costing $46 billion while the rest of our Nation is forced to endure the impact of painful spending cuts in programs important to working middle-class families. That's hardly fair and certainly not right.

This measure is more about scoring political points in an election year--trying to play gotcha--when we should be trying to move forward on measures that would give a real boost to job creation and economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation's premiere collection of American culture, the Smithsonian Institution has spoken. My hometown of Beckley, West Virginia, is among the Smithsonian's list of ``The 20 Best Small Towns in America.''

The master curators of our national trends, tastes, tragedies and triumph scoured one of our broad Republic's basic foundations, our small towns, to identify those that best celebrate culture, often those that celebrate their own culture and share it with the world.

The forthcoming article in the May 2012 edition of Smithsonian Magazine highlights a few of the Beckley area's many institutions, including the Beckley Exhibition Coal Mine, our Arts center, Tamarack, and the venerable Theater West Virginia. They reflect a hardworking, talented, inspiring, sharing, genuine people who would do anything and everything within their power to help their neighbor. The faith, hope and abundant charity within the hearts of the community is a hallmark we cherish. These cultural icons attract visitors across many cultures as well as our own school kids and families, all who are eager to learn and enjoy.

The Smithsonian quest was prompted by the premise that our ``big cities'' and ``grand institutions'' do not have a monopoly on our Nation's creative juices. I wholeheartedly agree. I would only add to the authors' survey, that partnerships as well as individuals--can constitute a virtual wellspring of cultural opportunity.

I know, firsthand, that partnerships on all levels of government and from all corners of the private sector have mixed and matched manpower, material and money to share the magic and majesty of our mountain heritage and living to all who pass our way.

These public sector commitments to local arts, theater and culture are long term investments of precious taxpayer dollars. They are among the fundamental building blocks of a regional economy. They are among the pillars that support an elevated quality of life for everyone. I know that my hometown is not unique in this respect and hope that my colleagues will keep this in mind as we debate the great needs of our nation.

I salute everyone involved in Beckley's, Raleigh County's and the great State of West Virginia's progress and in this most deserved distinction.

I say to my colleagues, it's worth a visit real soon.

I commend the Smithsonian, affectionately known at the nation's attic, for recognizing the best of our small cities, where the country's front porches have much to offer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time check, please, Mr. Chairman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Is the gentleman from Florida ready to close?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, has their time expired?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I asked for this time only because the chairman referred to opening these hearings in my hometown of Beckley, West Virginia, which he did, and I appreciate that very much and the many other hearings he held across the country. Yet the question is, you have to learn from these hearings, and you have to incorporate that which you learn from these hearings into the bill that you end up finally writing, and I'm not sure that was done from what the gentleman heard from my home State.

In addition, which the gentleman from Massachusetts referred to, as to the bipartisanship of the other body, we all know in this town and across the country how hard it is to get that other body to agree on anything. Even if it were a resolution saying, ``I love Mother,'' it's hard to get 60 votes over there for anything. Yet they got 72 votes for a bipartisan transportation bill. They got half of the Republican Members of that other body to support a bipartisan transportation bill. We have tried, as the gentleman from Massachusetts knows, to bring that up in the Rules Committee, to make it in order.

I and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) have tried and tried and tried to bring that up and on the floor of the House. Yet we get turned down at every turn in the road. At every corner in the road, we get turned down in our efforts to bring up the bipartisan Senate transportation bill. It is not very often that you will find such a measure produced by that other body. Yet they've done it this time, and we cannot get it brought up to the floor of this body.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that the extension the majority is bringing to the floor this morning is too long, and it will do nothing but continue the uncertainty that States and businesses-- small businesses, I might add--have faced since the expiration in the last long-term bill in August '09, 2\1/2\ years and eight extensions ago.

Uncertainty is what we are continuing by the passage of this extension today, uncertainty among the small business community in this country. They need the certainty with which to plan contracts.

This happens to be the springtime of the year, the time when contracts are let and when jobs are planned and when people need to know if they're going to be working or not--not 90 days from now. This is the contracting season with the work usually done during the summer and then concluded by the fall, and the bottom lines are added up.

We have already heard stories of small businesses that have had to cut back from 80 percent of their budget to 40 percent or less because they don't know what the Congress is going to do in terms of a long- term transportation bill. To elaborate on what my colleague from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) had said, the impacts on our State DOTs of endless extensions and the inability to plan for current and future transportation needs are very real, very real. And here are just a few of the examples:

North Carolina has delayed projects totaling $1.2 billion, affecting 41,000 jobs;

Nevada and Maryland each report 4,000 jobs are at risk due to projects being delayed;

Michigan has only let 35 percent of its projects, or $180 million below its normal activity level, and it's delayed several large construction projects;

Rhode Island has delayed $80 million worth of projects and planning for needed safety and structural improvements of a major interchange;

My home State of West Virginia reports that an extension would result in a 10 percent cut in programs, affecting over 1,200 jobs, and the State of West Virginia may be forced to shut projects down or delay payments to contractors to manage cash flow;

New Hampshire, Mr. Speaker, will not award contracts on $60 million in projects that were recently bid, affecting 1,800 job years, and will delay $115 million in bond issuance for the construction of two exits; and

Illinois estimates that the uncertainty posed by stopgap funding measures means that 4,500 jobs could be lost and that ongoing uncertainty will increase contractor risk and cause higher bids for construction projects.

Without congressional action on the Senate bill, many States in the Northeast and Midwest stand to lose an entire construction season. That would be a devastating blow to many States as they slowly recover from the worst construction downturn since the Great Depression.

While millions of construction jobs and much-needed infrastructure projects hang in the balance, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent weeks driving in circles. They have at least been consistent and embraced this theme of uncertainty in their own internal deliberations.

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

Mr. Speaker, the pending legislation before this body today, at the eleventh hour, as a result of a tortuous process--excuse me, it's not been a process at all, but rather a series of stalled starts, retreats, and the failure by the Republican leadership to seize upon a reasonable solution to reauthorizing our Nation's transportation surface programs.

At first, the Speaker stated this was a jobs bill. Almost as soon as the words were out of his mouth, he countered himself by saying that investing in America's infrastructure has nothing to do with jobs at all. Nothing to do with jobs at all.

What came about then was a scheme to produce a 5-year reauthorization bill coupled with that universal House Republican answer to all ills, which is to open up ANWR to drilling, drill, baby, drill, and then attempt to pay for some of the proposal on the backs of working-class Americans.

The surface transportation portion, H.R. 7, proposed to slash $15.8 billion in highway funding to the States, destroying 550,000 American family-wage jobs over the coming years. Investment in roads, highways, and bridges would retrench in all but five States.

The Republican leadership also proposed to shift public transit revenue to highways and then bail out transit with a one-time transfer of $40 billion from the general fund, while robbing middle class Americans to pay for the shuffle.

This is an idea that would make even the most hardened con artist green with envy. It is a shell game. It's a shell game, but it has no place in the hallowed Halls of Congress. It is a shell game, and it is a sham.

But it was not Democrats who took this ill-advised proposal down; it was Republicans. Over the course of 6 weeks, they caucused, they corralled, and they contorted themselves in trying to obtain 218 votes to pass H.R. 7. And they could not, which brings us to this week, when the Republican leadership decided to bring up a 90-day extension bill under suspension of the rules in the form of H.R. 4239.

But when this legislation was called up on Tuesday, it was done so as a 60-day extension. The House debated this measure. I asked for a vote, and the vote was postponed. As far as I know, that request for a vote is still pending, even as we debate a different bill now.

Then another curious thing happened. According to the publication Transportation Weekly yesterday, and I quote:

After more discussion among themselves, Republican leaders

order Mica to reintroduce the 60-day version of his extension

as a stand-alone bill, which can then be considered by the

Rules Committee.

That bill is H.R. 4276.

The Transportation Weekly article yesterday then noted, and I quote again:

After still more discussion among themselves, Republican

leaders order Mica to reintroduce the 90-day version of the

extension as a stand-alone bill, which can then be considered

by the Rules Committee as well.

Confused? Anybody confused?

That bill is now H.R. 4281, which we are currently debating. Who knows what we'll be debating the next hour.

And yet, during the course of last and this week, the Republican leadership could have scheduled the bipartisan, non-controversial, Senate-passed bill for consideration by this body. It could have been brought up any time by the Speaker, passed by this body in a bipartisan fashion, signed into law.

I make these points to illustrate the fast and loose means by which the Republican leadership has been dealing with an extremely serious matter. Instead they're spinning their wheels in pursuit of the ill- conceived H.R. 7, which slashes investments in Federal aid to highways by $15.8 billion from current levels at a time when more spending is needed to address structurally deficient bridges and maintain our highway system.

H.R. 7 reduces highway funding to all but five States.

H.R. 7 guts America's commitment to transit by a sleight-of-hand move that siphons away a portion of gas taxes which are dedicated to transit funding and instead proposes to fund

transit with general revenue funds which is offset on the backs of workers.

H.R. 7 contains a bogus pay-for by linking opening up ANWR and changes in OCS oil and gas leasing, which only produce $4.3 billion over a 10-year period.

H.R. 7 continues to send American dollars and jobs overseas through the inclusion of a ``Buy America Light'' requirement that does not fully cover transit rolling stock, Amtrak, and the Federal railroad loan program, while failing to crack down on DOT's waiver authority.

H.R. 7 places a roadblock on public participation in reviewing transportation projects by limiting and, in certain cases, outright waiving NEPA.

And H.R. 7 eliminates OSHA protections for hazmat workers and allows bad actors to continue to receive hazmat compliance exemptions.

So this body could have considered and passed the other body's bipartisan bill, which passed that body by a vote of 74 22. That's half of the Republican Members in the other body, and we know how difficult it is to get that other body to get 60 votes to cut off debate on any resolution or any bill. Even one saying ``I love Mother'' would be hard to pass in that other body. Yet, for a transportation bill, they came up with 72 votes.

That bill continues current funding levels, sustaining approximately 1.9 million jobs. The States will receive $3.8 billion more in highway construction funding than H.R. 7 over the course of 2 years.

The Senate bipartisan bill eliminates many of the gaping loopholes in current law by American requirements, loopholes that are being exploited by foreign competitors like China, who are stealing American jobs.

The Senate bipartisan bill does not contain poison pills like H.R. 7, such as provisions to strip OSHA requirements for hazmat workers and efforts to finance highway construction on the backs of middle class workers.

I would note, Mr. Speaker, that we have tried, we have tried by every means available to us on this side of the aisle, to have this Senate- passed bill brought up for consideration in the House, and not just through procedural motions. Yesterday, Representatives DeFazio, Corrine Brown, Tim Bishop, and myself submitted that measure to the Rules Committee, asking them to make it in order as an amendment to the pending measure so we could vote on it today. We were denied.

Instead, we are on the floor today with the Republican leadership proposal to kick the can down the road for another 90 days so they can try to convince their conference to support something they have not been able to do over the last 6 weeks.

The fact of the matter is we need to be investing more, not less, if we are to keep pace with China, India, and our other international competitors. Today China spends 9 percent of its GDP per year on infrastructure. India spends 5 percent. The U.S. only invests 1.9 percent.

While our competitors are moving forward, the inability of the Republican leadership to reach out across party lines to House Democrats to address this bill is leaving America stuck in a ditch and putting American businesses at a disadvantage with companies around the world.

In 2008, a blue ribbon commission established as a result of the last multiyear surface transportation bill reported that the Federal Government must invest a minimum of $62 billion a year just to maintain the Nation's roads and bridges in their present inadequate condition.

This bill comes nowhere close to that. Instead, it leads America down the opposite path. President Lyndon B. Johnson once said: ``In large measure, America's history is a history of her transportation.''

I say let us seize the moment and move forward without procedural gimmicks, without partisan brinksmanship, and do what is right for America, for the American worker, for American families, and for American values.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the distinguished ranking member on our Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the bill he is promoting, H.R. 7, means to his home State of Pennsylvania a cut of $948 million, and it destroys some 32,983 good-paying jobs. For fiscal year 2016, in the State of Pennsylvania, the level of funding will be less than that for fiscal year 2004. That's what H.R. 7 would mean to the gentleman's home State of Pennsylvania.

You would not yield to me. I will not yield to you.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes now to the gentleman from Missouri, a valued member of our committee, Mr. Carnahan.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) at this time, a valued member of our committee and the sponsor of H.R. 14, the other body's bipartisan transportation bill, which is twice as good as H.R. 7.

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes at this time to the distinguished gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the ranking member on our Economic Development and Public Buildings Subcommittee.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Gerry Connolly.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to yield the customary 1

minute to the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

I guess it's not very popular on his side of the aisle. He doesn't seem to have many speakers coming over. I haven't noticed many members of his committee to speak in favor of this extension today.

I am prepared to close. I would take some time from the distinguished chairman, if he'd be willing to yield me some of his time.

That's about all we're getting out of H.R. 7, too.

Madam Speaker, if the other side were serious about creating jobs, they would have worked in a bipartisan fashion in this body, as the other body did, to build a bill that could pass both bodies of the Congress and be signed into law. As the distinguished Democratic leader has just said, everybody is on board except the leadership of the House of Representatives on the Republican side.

Just as this Congress has done so many times before--and I have been in this body over three decades, involved in every transportation bill we've done over that time--every transportation bill we've done has been in a bipartisan fashion, passing this body by overwhelming margins.

Instead, today's leadership in this House has plowed full speed ahead writing a partisan proposal that is aimed at appealing to ideological spectrums of their party. Last month, Teamsters general president James Hoffa wrote in a letter:

How do eliminating OSHA protections for hazmat workers

improve this Nation's crumbling roads and bridges? How do

loopholes in ``Buy America'' protections put hundreds of

thousands of construction workers back on the job?

Last month in a letter addressed to the Speaker of this body, the general president of the Laborers International Union, Terry O'Sullivan, wrote:

The House must return to the principles of sound governance

and bipartisanship that has historically characterized

consideration of the Surface Transportation Act.

He further noted:

The offsets used to pay for this bill are also

irresponsible. Slashing the pay and retirement security of

the hardworking Federal and postal employees is neither

honest nor fair. It is an unacceptable attack on the

hardworking people who provide essential services for

veterans and Native Americans, process our mail, keep our

skies safe, our parks clean, and help protect us from

threats, both foreign and domestic.

As has already been noted, one of our key business groups in this country, the Associated General Contractors, has stated the following:

The majority of the work is supposed to go out in spring

and get done by the fall. Instead of spending 60 or 70

percent of their budgets, our small businesses are going to

cut back to 50 to 40 percent to make sure they have some cash

in the fall.

That comes from one of the major business groups in this country responsible for putting people to work and responsible for getting our economy moving again. I urge that we take up the bipartisan Senate- passed bill and reject this extension.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4239. This legislation is yet another example of the Republican leadership's ``my way or the highway'' approach to legislating. There was no consultation with anyone on this side of the aisle prior to this particular measure being introduced and scheduled for consideration. The extension is unduly long, and it ignores the fact that we do have a solution in hand in the form of a bipartisan Senate surface transportation bill which passed the other body the week before last.

With more than 2.7 million construction and manufacturing workers out of work, enough with the political games. With tens of millions more seeking a better life, it is far past the time to stop the brinksmanship.

As we approach the start of construction season, we need to come together to pass a highway bill that will improve our infrastructure and, most importantly, create jobs. Instead, Republicans in the House continue their ``my way or the highway'' approach that is now leading to a kick-the-can-down-the-road extension.

The other body has shown us the way. They passed an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill called MAP 21 with a vote of 74 22, with Senators Boxer and Inhofe leading the way across the ideological spectrum. The simple solution would be to take up that bill and pass it now. The President is prepared to sign it into law.

Yet, instead, we have before us another extension premised on the perverse notion that the Republican leadership will, over the next 60 days, garner enough votes on their side of the aisle to pass H.R. 7, the 5-year bill reported by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. That committee reported H.R. 7 on February 13. The Rules Committee approved a rule governing its consideration on the floor on February 15. That was almost 6 weeks ago. During that time, the Republican leadership has failed to find the votes among its Members to pass that bill. They do not have 218 votes, and they know it.

So the question is: What difference do they hope to achieve over the next 8 weeks that they were unable to achieve over the past 6 weeks? Not much, in my view, because the right wing of their party is holding H.R. 7 hostage to their ideological jihad that the Federal Government has no business in supporting a national transportation system.

On February 22, 1955, President Dwight Eisenhower stated:

Our unity as a Nation is sustained by free communication of

thought and by easy

transportation of people and goods. The ceaseless flow of

information throughout the Republic is matched by individual

and commercial movement over a vast system of interconnected

highways, crisscrossing the country and joining at our

national borders with friendly neighbors to the north and

south.

Promoted by a Republican President and passed by a Democratic- controlled Congress, America sought greatness as it embarked on the construction of the Interstate Highway System of 1956; and America achieved it, creating a transportation system that was once the envy of the world.

Yet H.R. 7 represents a full-scale retreat from that dynamic vision set forth 56 years ago. It mortgages America's future at subprime rates. It bankrupts the highway trust fund and endangers the future long-term integrity of transportation programs. It destroys American jobs at a time when legions of Americans are desperately seeking work and are trying to make ends meet. It is the wrong direction for America.

This day should be a day of glory. It should be a day when this body displays the courage and conviction necessary to address the pressing transportation needs of this Nation. Instead, it is a day of shame. It is a day when we are about to turn back the clock nearly half a century on America's greatness and on the incredible work we have done to grow our Nation, to build a thriving economy, and to lead the global market.

Unlike the House bill, which slashes funding and destroys 550,000 jobs, the other body's bill continues current funding levels, sustaining approximately 1.9 million jobs. Under the Senate bill, the States will receive $3.8 billion more in highway construction funding than the House bill over the course of 2 years.

The Senate bill eliminates many of the gaping loopholes in current law ``Buy America'' requirements--loopholes that are being exploited by foreign competitors, like China, who are stealing American jobs. MAP 21--that's the Senate bill--includes critical elements of my Buy America bill and the Invest in American Jobs Act, and it eliminates these loopholes in order to give American workers a fair shot. The Senate bill also does not contain poison pills like the House bill does, such as provisions to strip OSHA protections for hazmat workers and efforts to finance highway construction on the backs of middle class workers.

The Senate bill is not the bill I would have written, but it is a fair bipartisan compromise--a word some in this body don't like to hear, especially on the other side, but it is a word that is necessary for legislating. The bill will provide the certainty that States need to invest and proceed with their plans long on the books.

So, again, I call upon the Republican leadership to schedule that bill for consideration by this body now. Yet in the spirit of compromise--again, a word that's necessary in this body--I would remind the Republicans that it is a word in the dictionary, that it is a word that Americans use daily, and that I might consider supporting such a shorter extension than what is being proposed today, not this lavish 60-day, 8-week extension, but rather one that keeps our noses to the grindstone and that instills the sense of urgency that this matter deserves.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon, the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.

May I inquire of the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida, the distinguished ranking member of our Subcommittee on Railroads.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), who has introduced the other body's bill in this House. It's labeled H.R. 14 and is twice as good as

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield the customary 1 minute to our distinguished Democratic leader, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Can you give us the time remaining, please, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Olver.

I yield the gentleman 15 more seconds.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, to respond to the other side of the aisle about which party was in control when nothing was done or vice versa, whatever, as that side of the aisle knows, it takes so much to get the other body to agree on anything these days, to get the 60 votes necessary. It doesn't matter which party controls the other body; to get them to agree on something is difficult.

So I conclude by saying vote against these delays and pass the Senate bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice the concerns raised by my constituents regarding the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

Though I voted against H.R. 5, the Protecting Access to Healthcare Act, I, too, have concerns about an unelected, unaccountable board tasked with creating cost-cutting plans if Medicare spending exceeds certain levels. Though the Board is prohibited by law from cutting beneficiary policies, and the Congressional Budget Office predicts that a cost-cutting plan will not be triggered during this budget cycle, I urge my House colleagues to revisit this issue. We, as elected representatives of the people, have a Constitutional responsibility to ensure the voices of our constituencies are heard when it comes to the future of Medicare. Walling off those decisions, in order to expedite cost cutting efforts that lack sufficient popular support, is the surest way to a budgetary debacle.

We must preserve access to quality care, while containing costs, but we also must ensure an opportunity for the voice of the people to be heard and their needs to be taken into consideration.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't quite know from which side to request time on this issue. You see, I am for legitimate, well-scrutinized, scrubbed, and screened earmarks. Now, unless the GOP leadership can convince me that this is not an earmark, then I will vote ``no'' on the bill.

We should be here today debating a long-term, robust surface transportation bill that would create jobs and keep our economy moving forward by rebuilding America and by putting Americans to work. Rather, we are considering a bill that authorizes the construction of a specific bridge between Minnesota and Wisconsin with an estimated total project cost of $574 million to $690 million--an earmark. Instead of openly acknowledging that this bill is a blatant earmark, the Republican leadership pretends that it is not one. It was quietly added to the schedule less than 48 hours ago, scheduled for this post-sundown debate.

Do not get me wrong. I am not against earmarks, but let's be open, transparent, and honest with the American people. That's why ``earmark'' got the bad name it did, because we were not open and transparent and honest with the American people. So if there is any doubt whether the bill that the House is now considering today is an earmark, all you have to do is read the bill:

. . . may authorize and assist in the construction of a new

extradosed bridge crossing the St. Croix River approximately

6 miles north of the I 94 crossing.

Then the bill goes on on lines 21 through 23, page 2, section 3. It provides an offset. Guess where that offset comes from? Earmarks under the SAFETEA LU, under the previous transportation bill. It's how the majority is funding this bill. That was our last transportation bill, which took so much grief.

It all sounds pretty specific to me. In fact, the bill even tells the States what kind of bridge to build. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, by golly, it's probably a duck. This is an earmark, and I sincerely hope that the some-90 new Members on the majority side are learning just what an earmark is.

Now, I recognize the need for this new bridge crossing the St. Croix to replace the deficient 80-year-old Stillwater Lift Bridge, but I also recognize the need to move similar transportation projects forward across this great country, including in my own home State of West Virginia. What we ought to be doing is passing a long-term, robust surface transportation bill so that we can address the backlog of deficient bridges, roads, and transit systems in every State across the Nation.

Instead, we're voting on one earmark, and we are doing nothing today to strengthen our Nation's economic competitiveness and quality of life. We are doing nothing to alleviate the congestion that continues to cripple the economy in California. We are doing nothing to fix the bridges that are in disrepair in my home State. We are doing nothing to solve the fact that trains are traveling on outdated tracks across this country. We are doing nothing to address the commerce that is being trapped on turnpikes because these arteries of commerce are being choked by a transportation system ill fit for the country that is leading the global economy.

Last November, the Speaker announced that the House would take up the surface transportation bill by the end of the year. We all know what subsequently transpired, which is that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee produced a bill which slashes $15.8 billion in highway funding to the States, destroying 550,000 American family-wage jobs.

The bill then proceeded to the Rules Committee, which is where it was divided up into I don't know how many different pieces because there weren't the votes to pass the whole package. Who knows what kind of mishmash we got that time. I'm still trying to figure it out. Then who knows what type of mishmash we'll get the next time before we finally pass, if we are going to, a transportation bill that puts Americans to work, that gets our economy moving, and that helps long-term deficit reduction.

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

I had hoped for legislation today that would be laser-focused on creating jobs, on creating jobs and making our aviation system safer, more efficient and more accessible for our flying public. Instead, much of the drama over the FAA reauthorization, for the last year--and there's been plenty of that drama--erupted over a provision of the House-passed bill that would have changed how the National Mediation Board, the NMB, counts votes in representation elections at airlines and railroads.

Now, let me be clear. As I stated in our perfunctory one single, only conference meeting on this issue, that provision had no place and these labor provisions before the National Mediation Board have no place in FAA reauthorization because it has nothing to do with improving safety or creating jobs. Instead, it was a salvo aimed by the majority in this House at our American workers.

Today, we have a conference report with a so-called compromise, but that compromise still changes how airline and railroad workers join unions. Now, some will say that this compromise is several degrees better than the original provision in the House bill. Nevertheless, I strongly oppose the inclusion of this NMB provision in the pending legislation.

On the other hand, I am pleased that the conference committee flat- out rejected the proposal of the original House-passed bill to sunset the Essential Air Service program. I was beginning to suspect that my Republican colleagues were confusing the EAS title of this bill with the ESA, which, in my mind, refers to the Endangered Species Act. The gentleman in the chair will know to which I refer.

But this conference report will not make EAS an endangered species, fortunately, and the program will be continued with modest reforms to ensure that it remains a worthy investment. For communities in my home State of West Virginia, these airports are a vital lifeline and engine of economic growth that will be preserved, and this is what I reference when I refer to creating jobs.

This legislation will improve safety, and it will improve efficiency. It will create some jobs, though not enough, in my view. While it does not slash FAA funding to 2008 levels, it could have authorized more investment in our Nation's aviation infrastructure.

On the journey to a 100 percent sustainable, efficient, accessible, and safe aviation system, this bill is just a way-point. Much more work is still ahead, but at least this legislation will set a course for the Federal Aviation Administration to follow in investing for the future and in keeping the skies safe in the coming years.

I do not want to see the FAA countinue to limp along in the no-man's land of serial extensions, to which the chairman has already referred-- 23 or 24 to this date--and I certainly do not want to see another shutdown of this agency, as we saw last August, with innocent individuals being laid off work.

But I will watch closely how the NMB provision affects workers' bargaining rights, and will be ready to act to correct any unfair imbalance if that becomes necessary.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this point I am very honored, in a nostalgic way, to recognize the gentleman from Illinois, the former chairman of our subcommittee on aviation, the current ranking member, who is taking his expertise--and hopefully not his friendship--and going elsewhere after this year. He has been a very valued member of our committee, and his treasure chest of knowledge on this issue is boundless. I am just so happy and thankful that we've had Jerry Costello to represent us on this issue for so many years.

I recognize him for as much time as he wants.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a member of the conference committee as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), who is not only a member of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, but also our ranking Democrat on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), our ranking member on the House Education and the Workforce Committee. He is a true friend and leader of the interests of all working men and women in this country, especially our coal miners.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Corrine Brown, who is our ranking member on the Railroads Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes at this time to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Maxine Waters, ranking member on our House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello). Once again, I cannot say how much we're going to miss his knowledge and his expertise on this and many other issues on our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, but I yield him the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, today, I voted in favor of extending the pay freeze on Members of Congress. While Members of Congress should not be getting raises during a recession, our federal employees who provide services to our military members and ensure senior citizens receive their checks on time do not deserve to bear the brunt of cost-cutting efforts. The federal employees who daily show up for work in a spirit of service to our country deserve our respect and support.

Federal employees deserve thanks for the work they do, often at lower pay than they could command in the private sector, out of a spirit of service to our country. These federal workers don't deserve to be the pawns in cynical political showdowns. Shared sacrifice is necessary from all Americans as we continue finding ways to balance budget and to preserve critical programs, targeting one group over another out of political spite is not the answer. Federal workers are hard working American and I thank them for their efforts on behalf of the American people.