Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Since the founding of our Nation, there has been bipartisan agreement on the need for the Federal Government to play a strong role in interconnecting the States of our country. It was George Washington who said:

The only binding cement, and no otherwise to be effected

but by opening such communications as will make it easier and

cheaper for them to bring the product of their labor to our

markets.

And that's relevant today, I'll address that in a moment.

The second quote which is relevant to the dispute today is:

We are either united people under one head for Federal

purposes, or we are 13 independent sovereign entities

eternally counteracting each other.

This is the need--and the gentleman knows this photo well. There are more than 70,000 bridges that are structurally deficient in this country, load limited; there are another 70,000 or so that are functionally obsolete or need substantial repair--150,000 bridges. Forty percent of the pavement on the National Highway System doesn't just need an overlay; it needs to be dug up; it needs underlayment and restructuring. And a $70 billion backlog on our transit systems.

We are actually killing people because we aren't investing in our infrastructure, let alone losing the opportunities for millions of jobs and economic competitiveness and more fuel efficiency.

People died right here in Washington, D.C., on the Metro because they're running cars that don't work anymore in the middle of trains, surrounded by cars that are supposed to work and help the ones that don't work.

People died here because this bridge collapsed.

We need to make these investments. With the Made In America requirements in the transportation portions of our government--which are the strongest and we hope to make even stronger in this bill, working with the Republican side of the aisle here--we could put millions to work, not just construction workers who certainly need the jobs, but also small businesses that supply, fabrication firms, manufacturing firms, steel manufacturers, and others across the board would be put to work rebuilding our infrastructure.

What's the problem?

Here's the problem: The second thing that George Washington talked about, saying that we're either united or we're going to be internally counteracting one another. There are, unfortunately, a substantial number of Republicans in their conference who have blocked movement on a bill because they don't believe, unlike George Washington, that the Federal Government has a role to play in coordinating a national transportation system. They want to devolve to the States. They want to go back to the good old days before Dwight David Eisenhower brought us into the modern era with the National Highway System. Here's the good old days. That's the brand-spanking-new Kansas turnpike--oops, it ends in Amos Schweizer's field. That's the Oklahoma State line.

That's the Oklahoma State line.

Oklahoma had promised to build their section, but they couldn't because they had a funding dispute. And they didn't--until the Eisenhower bill passed and we had Federal aid to help Oklahoma build their section.

Now, we should go back to those good old days?

But there are some 85-odd members of the Republican Conference who are opposing a well-funded, longer term bill because this is their belief: These were better days for the United States of America.

Well, I'll tell you what. We could do a bill, and we could do a bill that does accommodate some of the concerns on the Republican side of the aisle with a serious conference over the next few days, with a will just to get it done, put America back to work, and rebuild our infrastructure. And you're going to have to have, unfortunately, because of your devolutionists, some Democratic votes to pass it.

Let's go back to the days of Denny Hastert: A majority of the majority need to vote for a bill, but it doesn't have to be passed only with Republican votes. We're not going to ever get a bill done if it's done on a partisan basis.

Mr. Speaker, last night we debated the future of our national transportation system. There are two competing views. There are those of us who want to rebuild and build upon the Eisenhower legacy with a national transportation system. And then there are those on the ultra-right who say the Federal Government should not invest in the national transportation system. It should be devolved to the States.

Hey, we already tried that. This is 1956. This is the brand spanking new Kansas turnpike. Guess what? It ended in a farmer's field at the Oklahoma line because Oklahoma didn't build their section until the Eisenhower plan passed and the Federal Government made the investment. They want to go back to those good old days. That's going to work really well.

Those of us who believe in investing in a national transportation system, putting America back to work, being more competitive and more fuel efficient last night were accused of being Socialists. We're Socialists because we believe in that. Right, Dwight David Eisenhower was a Socialist? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce are Socialists?

The U.S. Chamber is adamantly opposed to the Broun instruction. They say the Chamber strongly opposes the Broun motion to instruct conferees and urges you to vote against this effort to slash funding for highways, transit and safety programs.

He would take it zero--no new investment on October 1.

That's bad for America.

I thank the gentleman.

I would just key in on one of the aspects of the President's proposal, and that would be long-term legislation to invest $450 billion in our crumbling infrastructure.

Now, some people say to me, well, Congressman, I don't work in construction. I say, these aren't just construction jobs. We have the strongest Buy America requirements in the area of transportation investments. Underline two words: ``investments'' and ``jobs.''

Now, those investments, if made under Buy America in, say, transit vehicles, involve engineering, manufacturing. They involve steel manufacturing. They involve sophisticated fabrication of vehicles, the tires for buses, all of those sorts of things. We could put millions of people back to work and begin to revive the devastated American manufacturing sector and for once keeping the Chinese from stealing our jobs because of the Buy America protections.

But, no, the Republicans don't want to do that. They don't really like the Buy America provisions in the bill, and they don't want to make the investments.

We were here till midnight last night. The gentleman from Georgia proposed that we end all new Federal investment in transportation infrastructure on October 1. There would not have been one penny more. All of the money that he would allow in next year's budget would only be enough to pay for ongoing projects.

When the States finish a project, we reimburse them. We authorize the projects; the States build them; we reimburse them. The money that he would limit us to would only pay for projects already ongoing. That would bring it all to a halt, despite the fact the system is falling apart. We're living off the legacy of Dwight David Eisenhower, a mid- 20th century legacy. It's falling apart. It needs to be rebuilt. We also need to build out a 21st century infrastructure to more efficiently move goods and people and compete with our competitors.

Now, I heard a lot of nonsense last night, and 82 Republicans voted for this today, so this is a problem. The Republican Conference is having an internal war among themselves. They have 82 Members who believe the Federal Government--the Federal Government, the people of the United States assembled, the 50 States and territories--should not invest in transportation and infrastructure, that it should be done by the 50 States. It should be devolved. That's crazy. That's crazy. In the 21st century, we're going to have a 50-State transportation policy?

And how are the States going to pay for it? We tried that, until 1956. We had a turnpike built in Kansas that ended at the Oklahoma border, because Oklahoma didn't have the money, until Eisenhower passed the legislation and the Federal Government could invest. They want to go back to those good old days.

And then they prattle on about, well, these are just government jobs, government. They hate government. No, they're not government jobs. The government does not build bridges; the government does not build transit systems; the government does not build highways, gentlemen. They don't build any of those things. We go out and contract through the States for the lowest qualified bidders under Buy America requirements to build these projects with American workers and American products.

So let's stop all this nonsense on the Republican side of the aisle about the

government can't create jobs. The investments the government makes can create jobs in the private sector.

We have an infrastructure that's falling apart. The President wants to rebuild it. The Senate even wants to rebuild it on a bipartisan basis. But, no, the Republicans in the House of Representatives have stopped forward progress on this legislation, forgoing potentially millions of jobs. It's a shame. I only hope that the Senate and the President can prevail on this issue.

I thank the gentleman for bringing this to the attention of the House.

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

Well, here we are in the dark of the night, voting on what is really, for the most part meaningless, which is a motion to instruct conferees, which is nonbinding. But in this case, since this might indicate the intent of the majority, should this motion prevail, this is a very significant discussion of the future of our country.

Now, the gentleman talked about runaway spending, and we have some substantial agreement there. I was the lead Democratic sponsor on a balanced budget amendment which would force us to agree on ways to move toward fiscal responsibility, including both revenues, which that side denies, and expenditures.

But when we look at expenditures, we need to discriminate between consumption and investment. Investment is transportation and infrastructure, giving the United States of America a 21st century, competitive infrastructure system to compete with the rest of the world.

Our competitor nations get it. China's spending almost 10 percent of their gross domestic product on transportation investment so they can be more competitive, get their goods to market more quickly, more efficiently, more fuel efficiently, move their people more efficiently.

India, 5 percent. Brazil, 6 percent. United States of America, a little bit less than 1 percent--and the gentleman's amendment would cut it to zero for the next year. Yes, zero.

Now, how does that happen?

Well, the fact is that as we incur obligations to spend money on infrastructure, there's a tail, there's a lag. We only reimburse the States once the projects are finished. And it happens that, over the next year, the past obligations to which the Federal Government has committed, would equal the amount of money to which the gentleman would limit us, which would mean no new investment in transportation and infrastructure in this country, despite the fact we have 150,000 bridges on the Federal system that are at the point of collapse or need substantial rehabilitation.

We have 40 percent of the miles on the national highway system that don't just need an overlay; they need to be dug up. They need to be totally rebuilt. And a $70 billion backlog on our transit system. That's the 19th and 20th century system, let alone a 21st century transit them.

And guess what? If we make these investments with the ``Buy America'' requirements, which many on that side of the aisle are opposed to, we would put millions to work in this country. So we are, on this side, fighting for more investment. There are many on that side fighting for reduced investment. But this motion would actually propose zero, zero investment for the next year in transportation and infrastructure in America, with the deteriorating system. And that's somehow fiscally prudent.

The gentleman talked about the Chamber of Commerce. Kind of interesting because actually I have a letter dated June 5, pretty recent, from the Chamber of Commerce:

Passing transportation reauthorization legislation is a concrete step Congress and the administration can take right now to support job, economic productivity without adding to the deficit. The Chamber strongly opposes the Broun amendment, the motion to instruct conferees, and urges you to vote against this effort to slash funding for highways, transit, and safety programs. The Chamber may consider including votes on or in relation to this Broun amendment to instruct in our annual how they voted score card.

That's good. I might end up at 5 percent or 10 percent because I am going to oppose it. A lot of time I'm kind of zero with the Chamber. So that's good. They get it.

There's a long list of businesses and others that are opposed to this amendment. They understand for America to compete in the modern 21st century world we need an up-to-date transportation system. We don't have it, and the 20th century system we have, the legacy of Dwight David Eisenhower, a Republican President, is falling apart.

At the levels the gentleman would mandate with this motion to instruct, according to the Congressional Budget Office, there would be zero new investment in the coming year. That is hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, opportunities lost.

Now, I understand that on their side of the aisle they're having a very robust debate--I didn't bring my poster tonight--about the issue of devolution. And devolution is a theory that the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in national transportation policy. It should be delegated to the 50 States, and they should be responsible for paying for it.

Well, guess what? We had that system until 1956. Dwight David Eisenhower and the surface transportation legacy he gave us with the national highway system. And I have a great poster--I wish I'd brought it--which is a great photo from the air of the new, brand new, spanking new, beautiful new Kansas Turnpike, 1956. And guess what?

It ends kind of abruptly, and you go, wow, what's that line? Why does it end there?

Well, that was a farmer's field in Oklahoma, because Oklahoma said, well, we'll build our section too. We'll have a new, coordinated thing. But they said, well, we don't have the money, and they couldn't do it. And it wasn't done until the Eisenhower bill was adopted and we had a national investment in a national transportation highway system.

They want to go back to the good old days, a 50-State system funded by the 50 States that's disconnected. So freight comes into L.A., which is going to all of the Western United States, well, even some of it further to the east, maybe, probably not all the way to Georgia, who knows. Some of it. And well, I guess California would have to pay for moving all the freight for the rest of the country. Well, maybe they're not going to do that, and maybe the other States aren't going to do that under this kind of new, bizarre theory of devolution.

We need a 21st century, efficient, competitive, world-class national transportation system. The bill that

the Senate passed won't get us there. I would vote for it. Won't get us there.

The bill that was proposed on the Republican side of the aisle, which they couldn't even get out of conference, would move us backwards. This bill would take us back to essentially, not quite even Third World status because Third World countries are investing more of their GDP in transportation and infrastructure than us. It would be Fourth World, formerly First World, vaulting over everybody else saying, hey, we're just going to let it fall apart. We're going to leave it up to the 50 States, and maybe they can get it together for a national system. Maybe they can't. This is nuts.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate and I certainly do respect the gentleman from Georgia, and he is a gentleman, but let's get a few things straight here.

We're not talking about government jobs. We're talking about private sector jobs. The Federal Government does not build bridges. The Federal Government does not restore the condition of our highways. The Federal Government does not build transit vehicles or invest in transit systems. What the Federal Government does is to invest with strong ``buy America'' provisions to the best low-cost bidders to make and restore these products to make America more competitive.

One of the things that underlays our system, the most basic thing--I mean, George Washington, he started to build canals; Abraham Lincoln, the transcontinental railway; Dwight David Eisenhower, the national highway system, which is now falling apart; and Ronald Reagan put transit into the highway trust fund, because we shouldn't neglect our urban areas and the needs of those people.

The effect of the Broun amendment would be zero new Federal expenditures beginning October 1 next year on transit highways and other investments in transportation in this country. You can't get around that. That's what they're proposing. Because we have past obligations and the way they've written, this would limit us to only pay for past obligations, not any new obligations.

They rattled on and prattled on a bit about the Obama stimulus. I voted against it. Why did I vote against it? Because 7 percent was transportation investment and 40 percent was tax cuts. And guess what? Those damn tax cuts didn't put anybody back to work, and they won't put anybody back to work in the future. That's all you guys want, is tax cuts. We need investment in our country. We need investment in moving people and goods. We need to compete with the world, and you don't want to do it. That's nuts.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I thank the gentleman. I would point out that the Senate, the proposed Senate bill, which we could pass tonight, if we call people back, or tomorrow, or next week if we stayed in town to work, but we have breaks every other week now--39 legislative days until the election. America doesn't have any problems. We don't need to be here. Right? Come on.

But the bottom line is the Senate bill would not create a penny of new debt and would fund current levels of investment, which are not what we need; but we could get by with that for 2 years until we figure out a way to make more robust investments.

The gentleman would reduce that investment to zero, zero, not exaggeration. That's the Congressional Budget Office--zero. No Federal spending for transit, no Federal spending for highways next year. That's hundreds of thousands, millions, probably a million jobs, probably 1.6 million, we would sacrifice on the altar of what? Again, back to the principle, investment consumption.

Certainly you can understand that on your side of the aisle. It's been a Republican tradition to invest in America, to invest in a more efficient transportation system for America, to make us more competitive in the world, to move our people and our goods more efficiently, to avoid importing foreign fuel and all the other things we have to do with an inefficient system. This would defy all that and say, no, United States of America, we're not going to invest in our national transportation system.

We're going to devolve that to the 50 States. We're going to go back to 1956 when one State decides to make an investment and the other State doesn't and the road ends at the border. I can't understand what this is all about.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The language limits the funding out of the highway trust fund, including

the mass transit account for Federal aid highway and transit programs, to amounts that do not exceed $37.5 billion, about a third of the cost of the continuing war in Afghanistan, which I would like to bring to a close. But the existing obligations of the Federal Government for past construction, we reimburse States once the project is done, transit project, highway project, bridge project, done, we reimburse them. We don't pay them in advance. Our current obligations for the next year are $38.8 billion.

So, if we limit the outlays to $37.5 billion, and we owe $38.8 billion to the States when they deliver their completed contracts in the coming year, that means we would have negative spending on Federal investments in transportation and infrastructure.

While competitive nations around the world are investing dramatically to more efficiently move goods and people, we would spend less than zero.

I don't know how we spend less than zero, but that's what this amendment would do. You keep prattling on about the Obama stimulus. I voted against it. I was one of the few Democrats who did. I voted against it not because of investment in infrastructure, but because it didn't invest in infrastructure. The President talked about it. Larry Summers hated infrastructure.

Timmy Geithner hates infrastructure. Old-school Jason Furman, all his advisers, they hate it. Seven percent of the money we borrowed was invested in infrastructure. Seven percent of that $800-some billion dollars. And guess what? I can justify that borrowing because I can say to my kids and my grandkids, We built that bridge, we built that transit system, we built that highway, and you're still using it, and it made America more competitive.

But over 40 percent was tax cuts. He adopted the Republican approach. How many jobs did the tax cuts create? Nada, zero, none. You guys want to do more tax cuts, and you don't want to do any investment. That's what this would lead us to. You want to continue the Bush tax cuts--all of them--and you want to invest less than zero in Federal infrastructure.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to the time remaining?

I yield myself 3 minutes.

Again, we're failing to discriminate between investment and consumption. The Republicans were all for consumptive tax cuts, i.e., give people the money, they'll spend it on consumer goods, that will somehow put people back to work, as opposed to investing in the future of our country. That's what I'm talking about here.

It's interesting that they're on the wrong side from the Chamber of Commerce, the Association of General Contractors, and other groups that are incredibly generous to them during the campaign season who think they're very wrongheaded with this amendment.

This isn't fancy language. I have the statistics from the Department of Transportation. Over the next year, the Federal Government is legally obligated for past construction projects authorized under law to pay $38.8 billion to the States. This amendment would say we can spend no more than $37.5 billion in the coming year. That means we cannot even meet our legal obligations for past construction which will be completed by October 1. That means an end to all Federal investment in transportation in this country on October 1 for the next year.

It's not fancy language. It's a fact. It comes from the Congressional Budget Office, which the Republicans control, and the Department of Transportation, which the Obama administration controls. It's pretty much the consensus in the business community, the Chamber of Commerce, the Association of General Contractors, and everybody else. This would mean an end to investment for 1 year. That's a minimum of 1.6 million jobs lost. It's an incredible lost opportunity for the future of our kids and grandkids.

You need to understand the difference between--you're supposedly the party of business. It's like people borrow money when they're in business if they have a good investment to make, if they can make their company more competitive. We can make our country more competitive if we invest in our transportation infrastructure. If we neglect it and people have to detour around the 150,000 bridges that are weight- limited and about to collapse like the one in Minnesota, if they have to detour around the 40 percent of the deteriorated national highway system, if people can't get to work or get killed like they did here in Washington, D.C., on a deficient mass transit system because we have a $70 billion backlog, and all of these investments, when made by the private sector, for the private sector, and for the people of America, are made in America. And you would defer instead to more tax cuts.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have remaining?

Again, I wish this wasn't the dark of the night because this is a debate America should and would like to have. I'll reiterate: the United States Chamber of Commerce, with whom I frequently disagree, strongly opposes the Broun motion. We

have a long list of groups, private sector business groups, who oppose this motion because this is not about government jobs. It's about private sector jobs. This is not about government gone wild.

I wish it had been different. I wish that the stimulus had been half as large and 100 percent invested in the infrastructure of this country. We would have put millions more people back to work, and we would be on the road to recovery today. But instead, in deference to three Senate Republicans, the President, who wanted to look bipartisan, gave in to six times as much money for tax cuts as investment in infrastructure. And you want to blame infrastructure for the debt and the deficit, or the Obama failed stimulus? No, guys, no. It's your policies. We implemented them. And they don't work. We need to invest in the underpinnings of the country.

When I was first elected to office, I served with a very, very conservative Republican, a guy named Bill Rogers on the Lane County Commission, and he would always say, Government's for two things. I'd say, What's that, Bill? He'd say, Roads and rope. Roads and rope. That is public safety and infrastructure.

And there has been bipartisan agreement since George Washington that the Federal Government has an obligation to more efficiently move goods and people in this country. That's a long time before the incredibly competitive 21st century and what we're dealing with today with our huge trade deficits and everything else. That was George Washington.

Abraham Lincoln, a Republic President: Build the transcontinental railway. Borrowed money to do it, by God. What do you know? And then, Dwight David Eisenhower, the National Highway System, National Defense Highway System. And Ronald Reagan: We need to invest in transit in our cities.

And you would turn back the clock to pre-George Washington and say the 50 States--we didn't have States then, but, you know, you guys are going to at least allow us to keep federalism and that intact. But ``they should create somehow a Federal system. They should coordinate. They should raise the money. This is not an obligation of the Federal Government.''

This is not imaginary. This is not play. It's not ideology. It's simple hard numbers and facts. The number you would allow for the next year is deficient to the previous obligations.

Now, I know you guys took us--and there are a number of you on that side who say, hey, it doesn't matter if the Government of the United States of America defaults. I think it does. I've been good for my debts. I think our country has got to be good for our debts. And I think we would be in a disaster if we weren't.

So you can say that. Oh, yeah, you know, it's meaningless. It's facts.

This is reality. Invest in America. Why do you hate this country so much?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for one second.

Well, give me four, maybe.

I did not mean to direct the remark to you. It was a generic statement out of concern.

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

I have an amendment at the desk.

This is a very, very dramatic map. The colors indicate gasoline prices across America as of last week by county. As you can see, the entire west coast of the United States is in bright red.

Now we often hear from the oil and gas industry that prices are set internationally. This is an international market. You have to understand that.

Well, that's kind of interesting. Crude oil prices are down dramatically. U.S. production of crude is up a million-and-a-half barrels a day. We're exporting gasoline from the United States of America. But somehow we're missing that international market on the west coast. We're being price gouged on the west coast of the United States through a series of rather interesting or perhaps suspicious circumstances.

The largest refinery in Washington State, Cherry Point, experienced a fire in February, and it's been quite a bit of time in recovery. It's been delayed several times. It's now coming back online. But given the fact that it was known that the largest refinery in the Northwest was offline, one would think that other refineries in California would endeavor to stay online, particularly as we begin the summer driving season. Well, no, actually not, because they had to do routine maintenance.

So five refineries in California, just before Memorial Day weekend in May, decided that it was time for routine maintenance. Then, suddenly we had a shortage. Well, actually we didn't have a shortage. There were no gas stations with yellow flags. There were no gas stations with little red flags. No one was going without gasoline, but a shortage was declared by the industry and the price was jacked up.

So while the rest of the country has seen prices come down, following the international markets, the price on the west coast has gone up, skyrocketing last week 13 cents for a gallon of regular. In one week it went up. It dropped a penny yesterday. All right. We're on the way down. It seems it always goes down a lot slower than it goes up. Kind of interesting.

So I contacted the President's working group for oil price and market manipulation, and my inquiry has been referred to various departments within the government, including the Justice Department, to look at antitrust implications; the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and others, to look at potential market manipulation.

So I just thought in light of the fact that there may have been--may have been--some market manipulation here and perhaps at other times in the past, that we should just have a simple statement of fact on behalf of the United States House of Representatives. No oil or gas company convicted of antitrust violations should be able to access any of the $500 million in the Fossil Energy Research and Development section. That is to say, taxpayers of the United States should not gift money to oil and gas companies that have been convicted of price-gouging the taxpayers of the United States of America. Pretty simple.

I mean, I have even greater concerns over that account; and I joined with 102 Republicans, last night, and 36 Democrats in voting to delete the $500 million for fossil energy research and development. I think the industry can fund it on its own. And I would hope at least those 102 Republicans last night who voted to totally eliminate that account and the 36 Democrats who voted to totally eliminate that account would join with me today to say, well, we didn't eliminate the account, but we're not going to allow anybody convicted of antitrust that is price- gouging American consumers and taxpayers to access these taxpayer dollars to subsidize their private research and development and profits.

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

Mr. Speaker, now is not the time to delay or jeopardize the renewal of a job-creating national transportation program by insisting on a deal-breaking provision already rejected by the U.S. Senate. This motion to instruct needlessly puts millions of private sector transportation, manufacturing, engineering, and construction jobs at risk.

We desperately need long-term investments in our decrepit and failing transportation system. We need to bring certainty to states and the private sector in transportation project planning. But the continued temporary extensions of transportation authorities as passed by the House of Representatives are costing us jobs.

We are getting substantiated reports from the 50 states that they are delaying or even canceling transportation investments and projects for this construction season because of the uncertainty in federal funding. According to AASHTO, seven states will forgo at least 60,000 private sector jobs this construction season. I am certain the number would be more than a 100,000 forgone jobs if all 50 states were considered.

And remember, with strong buy American provisions in the bill, these are not just construction jobs. These are manufacturing jobs and sophisticated engineering jobs--jobs we need to keep and continue to create in this country.

Unlike the House transportation bill that would keep us limping along with 60-day and 90-day extensions, the Senate transportation bill would provide two years of funding. Instead of forgoing hundreds of thousands of jobs for this construction season alone, the Senate bill would maintain or create millions of jobs and begin making the investments we need to address the 150,000 bridges in need of repair or replacement and the 42 percent of the National Highway System pavement in fair or poor condition--to say nothing of the needed investments to move our transportation system into the 21st Century.

The Senate transportation bill also includes a desperately needed one-year extension of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act. This program provides an essential lifeline for more than 700 rural federally forested communities and 9 million schoolchildren across the nation. For Oregon, these payments may mean the difference between keeping criminals in our jails and sheriffs on the road or financial insolvency and the dissolution of county governments.

Congress can debate the XL pipeline any day of the week. And we should. Let's have a debate about the route, expedited approval, and environmental reviews. Let's have a debate on energy policies to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, bring down the price of gas for American consumers, and lead to a more secure energy future. But it's telling that Republican leadership has refused to bring a clean XL pipeline bill to the floor of this House. Instead, they insist on attaching it to must-pass legislation to score political points and to try to embarrass the President--these are not serious efforts to legislate.

With the national unemployment rate still hovering around 8 percent and the real unemployment rate closer to 15 percent it is absolutely unacceptable that Congress would take any risk of jeopardizing what should be a bipartisan effort to maintain or create millions of private-sector American jobs.

I urge my colleagues to reject this motion and to quickly pass a conferenced transportation bill that makes desperately needed investments in our transportation system, creates jobs, and helps ensure rural counties across the nation are able to offer basic government services.

On July 1, student loan interest rates are set to double on their loans from 3.4 to 6.8 percent.

After initially resisting making any adjustment in proposing actual further cuts in student financial aid, the Republicans said, No, wait a minute. We'll bring up a bill. We'll take care of that for 1 year. You just have to eliminate funding for public health and preventive health care.

Student loans or preventive health care and public health. They say that is the choice we have to make. We don't have to make that choice. There's a much better choice. If we raised taxes 1 percent on income over $380,000 a year, your taxes would still be lower than in the Clinton era, and we could fund a permanent reduction in financial aid for students.

I know at the country club they're not hearing much about people who can't afford to go to college. But I tell you what, for the people in my district and the people I represent, their kids are loading up with debt. It is going to hobble them after they graduate from college.

We've got to reduce these rates. We've got to reduce them permanently. Why not ask those who have made it fabulously and earn over $380,000 a year to contribute 1 percent to that cause?

I thank the gentleman.

There's one agency of the Federal Government that has never been audited--and is unauditable. It happens to be the Department of Defense.

Last year, Representative Garrett and I snuck up on them with a little amendment in the appropriations bill to require an audit of the Pentagon. It's not too much to ask when they spend $600 billion a year, none of which they can meaningfully account for according to the GAO. They can't reconcile their books. It was stripped out in the conference committee. Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire got one in the authorization bill. It was stripped out in the conference committee.

Now this time they're acting proactively. They're prohibiting us from bringing an amendment to the floor of the House that would require--and we're letting up on them a little bit--that 3 years from now the Department of Defense--that's $1.8 trillion from now--should have to pass an audit. And they're saying no, no, no, no. They can't be required to do an audit until they spend $3.6 trillion in the year 2017.

This is an abuse of the American taxpayer and an abuse of our servicemen and -women. The waste that goes on at the Pentagon has to stop. We need a meaningful audit.

The clock is ticking. Six days from today, an incompetent, ideological Board of Governors in the United States Postal Service intends to close thousands of post offices and processing centers, degrading service and denying access for millions of individual Americans, especially seniors, veterans, small business owners, and others. And what's the reaction of the Republican leadership in the House? Nothing. Silence.

We were in session until 1 o'clock in the morning voting on imaginary amendments to a bill that's not going anywhere, but they can't bestir themselves to bring forward a bill to save this critical institution. The Senate has acted. Their bill is not perfect, but it's better than inaction in face of the wrecking crew that is governing our postal services.

I urge my colleagues to support my bill, cosponsor my bill, H.R. 3591, put the postal service on a sustainable path toward a 21st century postal service, modernized and self-sufficient. But inaction and indifference will destroy this critical institution.

Mr. Speaker, the House Republicans want to play politics on the issue of doubling the student loans. They say, well, the reduction in student loan interest rates was never supposed to be permanent. Guess what. The Bush tax cuts, which I voted against, for millionaires and billionaires were never supposed to be permanent either, but you're fighting to preserve them every step of the way.

We can do one simple thing here. If we raised the tax rate on income over $350,000 only from 35 to 36 percent, we could give millions of students a more affordable education with lower interest rates. Those who have already made it would share a little bit of the burden to help those who want to be the next generation of business leaders and political leaders and scientists for our country.

Come on, guys. The millionaires and billionaires, they can take care of themselves. That wasn't supposed to be permanent. Let's help the students.

In a bitterly divided Congress along partisan lines, I think there is one thing we can all agree upon: America is falling apart.

Our Nation's infrastructure, according to two reports from commissions that met during the Bush administration when the Republicans controlled the House, the White House, and the Senate, came to the same conclusion: we are vastly underinvesting in our national transportation infrastructure.

We're not even spending enough to bring the Eisenhower-era investments up to a state of good repair: 150,000 bridges need repair or replacement; 40 percent of the pavement on the National Highway System needs to be substantially rebuilt, not just paved over; and a $60 billion to $70 billion backlog on critical capital investments for our legacy transit systems across America.

The good news is, if we make these investments, we'll put millions of people to work--and not just construction workers, not just engineers, manufacturing steel for the bridges, manufacturing for light railcars, for streetcars, first Made in America streetcars in 70 years being produced at Oregon Iron Works, and the components sourced from 24 States in the United States of America.

We have the strongest buy America requirements in our transportation sector, and I hope that we can agree, as we move forward through this conference, to strengthen those even more so we don't leak these precious tax dollars and jobs overseas like we do in so many other ways.

Now, I understand the reluctance of the majority, and they will prevail here today, to say, Let's do the Senate bill now and move on. Let's put people back to work starting next week. But I've got to caution the majority. They will prevail today, but these temporary extensions are costing us jobs. They aren't status quo, let's just extend 90 days and 90 days.

We are getting substantiated reports from the 50 States that they are delaying or cancelling transportation investments and projects for this construction season because of the uncertainty about Federal funding. Time is of the essence here.

In the northern tier States, we've got to get this bill done before we take--well, we've got a break next week, then we're back, I think, for 7 legislative days, then we've got a break the next week, then we come back for another 7 legislative days, then we've got a 10-day break after that.

We've got to squeeze in a little legislative work between these breaks. I believe that if we're determined that we can begin the conference as soon as we are appointed, and we could have this done no later than May 15 before we begin, two breaks from now, another break. So we've got to stop taking breaks and give the American people a break and put them back to work. Make the investments they know we need in our Nation's infrastructure.

I urge support for the ranking member's position.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank the gentleman.

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

have a $40 billion backlog of critical projects.

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

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

I thank the gentleman.

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

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

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

The Secretary shall treat an activity carried out under

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

way as a class of action categorically excluded from the

requirements relating to environmental assessments or

environmental impact statements.

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

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

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

I will yield to the gentleman.

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

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

This is really a discussion about the future of transportation in America, and there is a very basic difference.

The Republicans are being hung up because there is a substantial portion of their caucus that believes--truly believes--there is no Federal interest, that we should not have a national transportation policy and that it should be devolved to the States.

Well, that's what this looks like when you devolve to the States. Kansas Turnpike, 1956, Oklahoma said they'd build their section. They didn't. They were launching cars into Amos Switzer's cornfield for the next 8 years. This was about the failure of a 50-State transportation policy. They are being hung up by enough people on their side to hold up this bill by those who believe that this is the way the country should look in the future.

Now, we want jobs. Even if they could move their H.R. 7--which they can't because of this faction--they would cut funding by 20 percent. We've got 150,000 bridges on the Federal system, the National Highway System, that need repair or replacement. Forty percent of the pavement needs substantial redoing, not just resurfacing. There is a $70 billion backlog on our legacy transit systems--that's our 20th century system-- and there's no money in this for a 21st century system.

And this is their vision. Their vision, it's one of two visions. Cut 20 percent. The Ryan budget actually would cut transportation by 35 percent from current levels. Or the Flat Earthers who say there's no Federal interest in a national transportation system. One of those three things is going to come out from their side; a 20 percent cut, a 35 percent cut, or no program.

We have an alternative. Let's vote on the Senate bill. When you can get 22 Republican Senators to vote to extend the program for 2 years-- and we had one gentleman say, Oh, 2 years is nothing, no equipment orders. Well, guess what. I have a list here--and it's just the beginnings of a list--of seven State DOTs who have contacted the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials saying a 90-day delay will cost jobs; 40,000 jobs in North Carolina, and on down the list. Nevada, Maryland, Michigan, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and New Hampshire have all reported in about projects they're going to delay or cancel if we do another 90-day extension and we don't do the 2-year bill. The 2-year bill is enough certainty for these projects to move forward. No, it's not optimal. We need a real 5-year bill, but we don't need a 5-year bill that guts or destroys the program. But those are the alternatives you are offering us here.

Just give us one vote, just one vote. Let us vote on the Senate bill, which passed as a true bipartisan bill. This is not a bipartisan bill. The gentleman from Florida is a good friend. But look, we did not sit down and look at this bill and review it. It was presented to us.

This could or should be the most important jobs-creating bill in America, investing in our Nation's infrastructure, making our Nation more competitive in the international economy, more efficiently moving goods and people. The current system, a legacy of the 1950s, is falling apart.

The Republicans are telling us that this 90-day extension will be good for America. It will not be good for America because we have a better option before us. A bill passed by the United

States Senate, a bipartisan bill, with 22 Republican Senators, half the Republican Senators supporting that bill, which would give us more funding without creating deficit and create more jobs than their pie- in-the-sky bill, H.R. 7, which they can't even get out of their own caucus here, because their own caucus is split.

There are a number of Republicans who do not believe we should have a national transportation system. They want to devolve it back to the States, go back to the pre-1950s.

The Speaker was forced to say to his caucus:

We are not making the claim that spending taxpayer money on

transportation projects creates jobs. We don't make that

claim, and we won't make that claim. What makes this a jobs

bill is that it removes government barriers that are getting

in the way of economic growth.

That's not what all the people engaged in rebuilding the Nation's infrastructure think. They think investment equals jobs. If we do this 90-day extension, the Association of General Contractors says that States will cut back from 50 percent to 40 percent of their planned projects because of the uncertainty created by this 90-day extension. We're going to lose half of the proposed projects this construction season around America, tens of thousands of jobs, needed investment because they've got a bunch of bozos in their caucus that don't believe we should have a national transportation system. They're fighting among themselves.

Give us a vote. Let us vote on the Senate bill.

It doesn't create deficit. It does create jobs. It does give us the investment we need.

The gentleman who spoke just before me, the gentleman from Tennessee, who is a good friend, under the bill they're trying to pry out of their caucus, which the Secretary of Transportation called the worst transportation bill in history--and by the way, the Secretary is a Republican and served in this House for more than a decade. He says it's the worst bill ever in terms of policy and lack of investment. In the case of the gentleman from Tennessee, their H.R. 7, if they could get it out of caucus--and they can't--it would cost his State $444 million over 5 years. That's lost investment. That's more than 10,000 jobs lost.

We have an opportunity today to take up a 2-year bill and provide certainty not only for construction jobs and for engineering jobs, but for people who manufacture construction equipment, for people with Made in America requirements who construct transportation equipment, our buses, our light rail, our streetcars, all the things that need building and replacing just for the existing system, let alone beginning to have a vision of building out a 21st century system. Our competitor nations around the world are doing it.

They are so dyspeptic on their side, they're arguing over whether or not the Federal Government should be involved in transportation. That's nuts. We settled that debate 60 years ago when Dwight David Eisenhower said this doesn't work. We have States building turnpikes that end in farmers' fields because the adjoining State couldn't afford to build their section of the turnpike. He said we need a coordinated national transportation policy.

We have an opportunity to improve on the one we have today by passing the Senate bill that does do some streamlining, it does do things that will help us spend the money more efficiently, and it maintains current levels of spending instead of reductions, and it does not have the uncertainty of a 90-day bill that is going to cost us half of the proposed projects this construction season.

Give us that chance. Let us have that vote. What are you afraid of? Are you afraid it might pass?

I still agree with that quote. We shouldn't play politics. It has never been a partisan issue. You've made it into a partisan issue, and that quote was when you were opposing a 90-day extension and when I was saying don't play politics by opposing a 90- day extension at that point in time. But we're too far down the road. We didn't have an alternative then. We have an alternative now. Pass the Senate bill.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I just want to reiterate the point I made earlier. Outside of a minority of their caucus, I believe a majority of the United States House of Representatives believes that Federal investment--using taxpayer dollars without creating deficit--that Federal investment and rebuilding our national infrastructure, the 150,000 bridges on the National Highway System that need substantial repair or replacement--the steel that goes into those bridges is made in America. The workers are American workers. The engineers are American engineers. The $60 billion backlog in our existing transit systems, let alone giving Americans more fuel-efficient transit options, $60 billion. Buses made in America, light railcars made in America, these are manufacturing jobs, engineering jobs, high-tech jobs. These are not just construction jobs.

The construction industry, itself, is devastated with double-digit unemployment. Passing this 90-day extension, according to the Association of General Contractors, a very Republican-leaning organization--80 percent of their political contributions go to the Republicans, so they are not partisan to our side of the aisle--they say that it is going to mean the States will go to a 40 or 50 percent reduction in their projects this summer because they are not assured beyond that 90 days that they're going to get their Federal reimbursements. Many States, unlike this body and unlike the Federal Government, have constitutional balanced budget requirements, something we should have nationally. But that's a debate for another day.

The point is that this temporary extension does cost us jobs, and the bill we'll vote on later today, the Ryan budget, would actually reduce transportation investments by 56 percent from current levels, which isn't even dealing with the already deteriorated infrastructure and is not putting people back to work.

So there's this kind of a mixed message on their side. They say, Well, just do the 90 days and then we'll do H.R. 7. Well, H.R. 7 will reduce spending and cost half a million jobs.

The budget they're going to vote on later today would reduce spending by 56 percent on transportation. That is mind-boggling in the face of what confronts our Nation, the challenges around the world, and the need for jobs.

There are people on their side of the aisle that just say, The government can't create jobs. They're hung up on this semantic thing. No, the government isn't creating the jobs. The government is investing taxpayer dollars without borrowing to let out private contracts to the lowest and best bidders to build these projects with all products made in America--the strongest Made in America requirement.

So you can't tell me those things don't create jobs. Those are investments. They create jobs. Consumption and tax cuts don't create jobs. They want more tax cuts instead of investment in America. That is so wrong.

Let us vote on the bipartisan Senate bill. If 22 Republican Senators can support that bill, which would give us 2 years of stability, we ought to have a chance to vote on it in this House.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise to urge Members to vote against the previous question.

Now, why would we do that?

Because we need to invest in America's crumbling infrastructure, and the Republicans are totally incapable of producing a transportation bill.

Here's a little bit of review of history.

February 8, 2011, Chairman Mica: We will have a bill by August.

Then we skip forward a little bit, August, Chairman Mica: I will agree to one additional highway program extension--meaning they didn't get the bill done by August.

Then we fast-forward to November, Speaker Boehner: House to pass highway bill this year.

That was, of course, November 2011. It's 2012. Now the Republicans are saying they need another 90 days to get agreement in their own caucus. They're never going to get agreement. There are 80 Members of the Republican caucus who believe that there is no Federal interest-- get this--no Federal interest in the national transportation system. It should devolve to the 50 States, back to the good ol' days when Kansas built the turnpike and Oklahoma didn't, and the cars were launched off the end of the turnpike into a farmer's field for another 5 years until Kansas finally got around to it. Let's go back to those good old days.

They also say they don't want to create jobs. This won't create jobs, the Speaker has said. Well, guess what? Transportation investment is the best way to create made-in-America jobs: transit equipment made in America, steel made in America, construction jobs by Americans for Americans for our future. They can't get it done. No more 90-day extensions or whatever they're dithering around now. They've got the throttle on the floor and they're spinning doughnuts, but they've run out of gas.

So it's time to act. What we need to do is defeat the previous question, bring up the bipartisan, Senate-passed transportation bill, which half of the Republican Senators--some of the members of the Flat Earth Society even voted for. Bring that bill up here--we can get the votes on this side of the aisle--and pass it and put Americans back to work.

I thank the gentleman.

Well, the Republicans have got the wheel hard over, pedal to the metal. They are spinning doughnuts. And they want another 90 days or 60 days--it was 90 days yesterday; 60 days today--to spin doughnuts until they run out of fuel on their side of the aisle.

Look, the Senate, which previous to this leadership was the most dysfunctional legislative body in the land, has passed a 2-year bill with reforms and streamlining with half of the Republican Senators, including some members of the Flat Earth Caucus, voting for it. It received 74 votes in the Senate. Nothing gets 74 votes in the Senate. But you're refusing to bring that bill up because--we might get something done around here. So how about another 60 days to spin our wheels?

Well, let's have a little bit of history here: February 8, 2011, Chairman Mica: ``We'll have a surface transportation bill by the August recess.'' That was, what, 2011. Oops. Well, then in August of 2011, Chairman Mica: ``I will agree to one additional highway program extension.'' Oops. He's asking for yet another and another and today yet another.

Well, then, spin forward quickly to November of 2011, Speaker Boehner: ``House will pass a highway bill this year.'' That was last year. Then we go forward to February 1, 2012. Here's the problem: they've got a bunch of people on their side who hate government so much that they're willing to destroy the national transportation program to kill it. We are not making the claim, Speaker Boehner, that spending taxpayer money on transportation projects creates jobs, are we, huh?

They hate government so much, they will say that investment by the government in building a national transportation system and maintaining it and rebuilding it with ``Made in America'' requirements does not create jobs. Why would he say that? Because they've got 80 people on their side of the aisle who do not believe we should have a national transportation plan or policy. They're willing to let our roads, bridges, and highways crumble.

This is the pre-Dwight David Eisenhower--a Republican President-- National Highway System program. This is the brand-spiffy-new Kansas Turnpike that ended in this farmer's field on the Oklahoma border. This went on for years because Oklahoma didn't deliver its section. They want to go back to those good old days. No Federal mandates. No Federal transportation system. Oh, okay. So the Port of Los Angeles and the people of southern California should pay for everything that relates to getting freight in and out of L.A. It doesn't affect the rest of the United States of America. Or the Port of Portland or the Port of Seattle or the ports on the east coast.

Our competitor nations get it. They're spending. They're investing. Even countries with austerity programs, like Britain, they're putting people back to work. Despite what the Speaker had to say to the Flat Earth Caucus over there, it does create jobs and investments. We need to move forward.

Now they're saying, Oh, no problem, just another temporary delay while we get our act together on our side of the aisle. Well, again, we already heard the statement, no more, only one more temporary extension. That was about 9 months ago. And we're finding now that actually the delays are costing jobs, uncertainty costs jobs. States can't make commitments for major projects and investments if they don't know if there is going to be Federal money there in 90 days. Ninety days? Oh, 60 days. I forgot. In 60 days. They're going to plan a long- term project that can last 60 days? No, I don't think so.

So in North Carolina, the Secretary of Transportation says: The delays have cost 41,000 jobs. That seems a little high to me. But Nevada, 4,000 jobs. Maryland, 4,000 jobs. Michigan, 3,500 jobs. Adding it up across the country, even if we use the low numbers, we're talking tens of thousands of job opportunities lost because they can't get their act together.

Just let us vote on the Senate bill. That's all we're asking. I mean, I think there might be a few people on your side of the aisle who would agree with their Republican colleagues in the Senate and support it. And I can guarantee we would get almost every Democrat on this side of the aisle to vote for it.

You can't even get your own people to vote for your own bill. You are wrapped around the axle on your own caucus day after day. You have to pretend it won't create jobs. Well, that's not enough for them.

Paul Ryan has now proposed in the budget, which we're going to vote on next, that we should decrease funding in transportation by 35 percent. But you're saying over there that you want to continue the current levels. Well, you'd better get it together because if you're going to support the Ryan budget, then you've just voted to cut transportation beginning October 1 by 35 percent. That's about 500,000 jobs. But what the heck.

You guys hate government so much, you hate America so much that you won't do what's necessary to put this country back together, to rebuild the infrastructure that was given to us by Democrats and Republicans alike for more than half a century, never in a partisan way. This is the first experiment, the first attempt to pass a totally partisan bill, and you're failing on your own side of the aisle.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore