[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 30 (Wednesday, March 2, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1473-H1480]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 662, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
EXTENSION ACT OF 2011
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 128 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 128
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
662) to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway
safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs
funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a
multiyear law reauthorizing such programs. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure; (2) the amendment printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, if offered by Representative Mica of Florida or
his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of
any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be
separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be
subject to a demand for a division of the question; and (3)
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
{time} 1330
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 128 provides for a
structured rule for consideration of H.R. 662. This rule provides for
ample debate and opportunities for Members on both sides of the aisle,
the majority and minority, to make sure that they have ample time to
participate, come to the floor, and express their ideas, which is what
this new Republican majority is enabling Members to do.
I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. The
underlying legislation is a simple extension of service transportation
programs through September 30 of this year.
This legislation was introduced by the distinguished chairman of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Chairman Mica, on February
11, 2011, with Ranking Member Rahall as an original cosponsor. It was
reported out of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure by a
voice vote on February 28, 2011. This legislation went through regular
order with bipartisan support.
This is a clean, straight extension of current law, providing a hard
freeze at 2009 spending levels through the end of this fiscal year.
Without this legislation, the spending levels would expire on Friday,
March 4, 2011.
In an effort to provide more transparency and accountability of how
this body has been run, which is different than how this body has been
run for the past 4 years, the Republican Conference adopted a policy
that would no longer permit extensions of programs on a continuing
resolution or any other appropriations bills. This allows Members a
straight up or down vote on an issue at hand and, in this case, it is
surface transportation.
The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011 continues the
authorization of Federal highway, transit, and highway safety programs
through the end of this fiscal year at the same program funding levels
established for fiscal year 2009. This authorization is essential to
allow funds that had been included in transportation appropriations
legislation to flow to States and local transit agencies. We are not
trying to get in the way of decisions that need to be made locally; we
are simply trying to make sure that they are legally executed.
Should this straight extension of transportation funding not be
signed into law before the March 4 deadline, the impact would be severe
and immediate. A shutdown would result in immediate furloughs and
suspension of payments to States, which would hamper the Federal
Highway Administration's ability to pay contractors. This would
jeopardize the States' transportation funding to a tune of $154 million
a day, killing ongoing projects, things which had been agreed on and
are being done locally.
This level of funding was extended by the previous Congress six times
starting in October of 2009. Continuing this funding at 2009 levels
allows for the appropriate funding for States to complete and manage
their transportation projects. With an extension through the fiscal
year, it will allow the new chairman of the Transportation Committee,
my dear friend, the favorite son and gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica)
the appropriate time to hold necessary hearings to review and re-
estimate the funding essential for States to carry on their
transportation projects.
The Congressional Budget Office, which is also known as the CBO, has
concluded that the underlying bill today does not affect direct
spending or revenues. Further, the CBO determined
[[Page H1474]]
that, ``the nontax provisions of H.R. 662 contain no intergovernmental
or private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments.''
Additionally, according to the Department of Transportation, surface
transportation allows for international trade, which helps sustain and
create jobs that support our national economy.
The data reported in the past 10 years says that U.S. surface
transportation trade between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, has
increased 48.6 percent, a 13.8 percent increase in the past year alone.
In December 2010, imports were up 41.9 percent compared to December
2000, while exports were up 57.7 percent.
Currently, this trade is valued at $66.5 billion annually. In an ever
increasing global market, the United States needs to ensure that our
surface infrastructure can sustain the tremendous growth rate of trade
so that we can maintain international competitiveness, create jobs and
encourage economic growth in the United States of America.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the
underlying legislation. I applaud the Republican leadership for
following regular order for the bipartisan nature of this bill, for
Republicans and Democrats working together through the entire process,
and up to and including the gentleman, Mr. Dreier, the chairman of the
Rules Committee, extending an unusual amount of time so that every
single Member has an opportunity to come to this body and not only
voice what they believe is important to them but also the time where
they can come down and speak to important matters of this Congress.
The chairman and ranking member continue to work together to provide
a necessary extension that will get us through the rest of the year,
and I look forward to an open and transparent process for the
reauthorization for next year's funding also. I have confidence in not
only Chairman Mica, but also John Boehner and Eric Cantor, as they lead
this House of Representatives on transportation issues, to do what's
right for a beautiful country that expects Congress to have an open and
transparent process that is good for all Members.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on
the underlying bill.
December 2010 Surface Trade With Canada and Mexico Rose 13.8 Percent
from December 2009 (State Rankings in Tables 5 and 7)
Trade using surface transportation between the United
States and its North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
partners Canada and Mexico was 13.8 percent higher in
December 2010 than in December 2009, reaching $66.5 billion,
according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) of
the U.S. Department of Transportation (Table 1).
BTS, a part of the Research and Innovative Technology
Administration, reported that the value of U.S. surface
transportation trade with Canada and Mexico fell 2.2 percent
in December 2010 from November 2010 (Table 2). Month-to-month
changes can be affected by seasonal variations and other
factors.
Surface transportation consists largely of freight
movements by truck, rail and pipeline. In December, 84.8
percent of U.S. trade by value with Canada and Mexico moved
on land.
The value of U.S. surface transportation trade with Canada
and Mexico in December was up 12.6 percent compared to
December 2005, and up 48.6 percent compared to December 2000,
a period of 10 years. Imports in December were up 41.9
percent compared to December 2000, while exports were up 57.7
percent (Table 3).
U.S. Surface Transportation Trade with Canada
U.S.-Canada surface transportation trade totaled $39.8
billion in December, up 12.2 percent compared to December
2009. The value of imports carried by truck was 17.7 percent
higher in December 2010 compared to December 2009, while the
value of exports carried by truck was 10.4 percent higher
during this period (Table 4).
Michigan led all states in surface trade with Canada in
December with $4.7 billion (Table 5).
U.S. Surface Transportation Trade with Mexico
U.S.-Mexico surface transportation trade totaled $26.8
billion in December, up 16.3 percent compared to December
2009. The value of imports carried by truck was 16.3 percent
higher in December 2010 than December 2009 while the value of
exports carried by truck was 18.7 percent higher (Table 6).
Texas led all states in surface trade with Mexico in
December with $9.5 billion (Table 7).
The TransBorder Freight Data are a unique subset of
official U.S. foreign trade statistics released by the U.S.
Census Bureau. New data are tabulated monthly and historical
data are not adjusted for inflation. December TransBorder
numbers include data received by BTS as of Feb. 16.
The news release and summary tables can be found at http://
www.bts.gov. More information on TransBorder Freight Data and
data from previous months are posted on the BTS website at
http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/. BTS
will release January TransBorder numbers on March 29.
TABLE 1--VALUE OF MONTHLY U.S. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION TRADE WITH CANADA AND MEXICO
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent change Percent change
Month 2008 2009 2010 2008-2009 2009-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January.................................. 65,160 47,459 56,697 -27.2 19.5
February................................. 69,406 47,938 59,492 -30.9 24.1
March.................................... 70,787 51,055 69,943 -27.9 37.0
April.................................... 74,317 49,729 65,831 -33.1 32.4
May...................................... 74,128 47,881 66,805 -35.4 39.5
June..................................... 74,139 50,753 69,859 -31.5 37.6
July..................................... 71,628 51,545 61,260 -28.0 18.8
August................................... 72,254 54,254 67,964 -24.9 25.3
September................................ 71,801 57,294 68,324 -20.2 19.3
October.................................. 72,683 61,400 70,565 -15.5 14.9
November................................. 60,661 58,922 68,060 -2.9 15.5
December................................. 52,910 58,465 66,530 10.5 13.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual............................... 829,875 636,695 791,329 -23.3 24.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.
Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.aov/programs/international/transborder/.
TABLE 2.--U.S. SURFACE TRADE WITH CANADA AND MEXICO BY MODE OF TRANSPORTATION
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
change Percent
Mode December 2009 November December November change
2010 2010 December December
2010 2009-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Surface Modes:
Imports......................... 32,030................ 36,544 36,345 -0.5 13.5
Exports......................... 26,435............... 31,516 30,185 -4.2 14.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 58,465............... 68,060 66,530 -2.2 13.8
Truck:
Imports......................... 19,223............... 23,761 22,480 -5.4 16.9
Exports......................... 20,600............... 24,660 23,390 -5.1 13.5
Rail:
Imports......................... 6,451................ 7,222 7,106 -1.6 10.2
Exports......................... 3,317................ 3,912 3,785 -3.2 14.1
Pipeline:
Imports......................... 5,125................ 4,413 5,157 16.9 0.6
[[Page H1475]]
Exports......................... 373.................. 482 549 13.9 47.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding. The
value of trade for all surface modes is not equal to the sum of truck, rail and pipeline modes, it also
includes shipments made by mail, foreign trade zones, and other transportation. For additional detail refer to
the ``Data Fields'' Section of the TransBorder web page: http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/
TBDR_DataFields.html.
Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/.
TABLE 3.--DECEMBER 2010 SURFACE TRADE WITH CANADA AND MEXICO COMPARED
WITH DECEMBER OF PRIOR YEARS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent change
Compared to December in . . -------------------------------------------
. Total surface
Imports Exports trade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009........................ 13.5 14.2 13.8
2008........................ 25.7 25.8 25.7
2007........................ 5.4 14.3 9.2
2006........................ 7.2 20.1 12.7
2005........................ 5.3 22.8 12.6
2004........................ 22.5 34.8 27.8
2003........................ 40.1 54.9 46.5
2002........................ 54.0 75.6 63.1
2001........................ 66.7 83.5 74.0
2000........................ 41.9 57.7 48.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/programs/
international/transborder/.
TABLE 4.--U.S. MERCHANDISE TRADE WITH CANADA BY SURFACE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
change Percent
Mode December November December November- change
2009 2010 2010 December December
2010 2009-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Surface Modes............ Imports......... 18,926 20,461 21,432 4.7 13.2
Exports......... 16,521 19,012 18,330 -3.6 10.9
Total........... 35,447 39,472 39,762 0.7 12.2
Truck........................ Imports......... 8,836 10,373 10,399 0.3 17.7
Exports......... 12,776 14,667 14,106 -3.8 10.4
Rail......................... Imports......... 4,121 4,893 4,707 -3.8 14.2
Exports......... 1,825 2,133 2,095 -1.8 14.8
Pipeline..................... Imports......... 5,107 4,398 5,142 16.9 0.7
Exports......... 251 306 227 -26.0 -9.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding. The
value of trade for all surface modes is not equal to the sum of truck, rail and pipeline modes, it also
includes shipments made by mail, foreign trade zones, and other transportation. For additional detail refer to
the ``Data Fields'' Section of the TransBorder web page: http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/
TBDR_DataFields.html.
Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/programs/intemational/transborder/.
TABLE 5.--TOP 10 STATES TRADING WITH CANADA BY SURFACE MODES OF
TRANSPORTATION, RANKED BY DECEMBER 2010 SURFACE TRADE VALUE
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
December
Rank State 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................. Michigan.............. 4,672
2.................................. Illinois.............. 3,824
3.................................. New York.............. 3,276
4.................................. California............ 2,462
5.................................. Ohio.................. 2,394
6.................................. Texas................. 2,300
7.................................. Washington............ 1,551
8.................................. Pennsylvania.......... 1,486
9.................................. Minnesota............. 1,288
10................................. Indiana............... 1,202
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/programs/
intemational/transborder/.
TABLE 6.--U.S. MERCHANDISE TRADE WITH MEXICO BY SURFACE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
December November December Percent change change
Mode 2009 2010 2010 November-December December
2010 2009-2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Surface Modes............................. Imports.......................... 13,104 16,083 14,913 -7.3 13.8
Exports.......................... 9,914 12,504 11,855 -5.2 19.6
Total............................ 23,018 28,587 26,768 -6.4 16.3
Truck......................................... Imports.......................... 10,387 13,389 12,081 -9.8 16.3
Exports.......................... 7,824 9,993 9,284 -7.1 18.7
Rail.......................................... Imports.......................... 2,330 2,328 2,399 3.0 2.9
Exports.......................... 1,491 1,780 1,690 -5.0 13.3
Pipeline...................................... Imports.......................... 18 15 15 4.0 -13.1
Exports.......................... 122 175 322 83.8 165.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding. The value of trade for all surface modes is
not equal to the sum of truck, rail and pipeline modes, it also includes shipments made by mail, foreign trade zones, and other transportation. For
additional detail refer to the ``Data Fields'' Section of the TransBorder web page: http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/
TBDR_DataFields.html
Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/.
TABLE 7.--TOP 10 STATES TRADING WITH MEXICO BY SURFACE MODES OF
TRANSPORTATION RANKED BY DECEMBER 2010 SURFACE TRADE VALUE
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
December
Rank State 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................. Texas................. 9,459
2.................................. California............ 4,073
[[Page H1476]]
3.................................. Michigan.............. 2,922
4.................................. Arizona............... 979
5.................................. Illinois.............. 915
6.................................. Ohio.................. 686
7.................................. Tennessee............. 497
8.................................. Indiana............... 445
9.................................. Georgia............... 414
10................................. North Carolina........ 399
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/programs/
international/transborder/.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my good friend from Texas for
yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 662, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2011, prevents our Nation's highway, transit, and safety programs from
expiring ahead of the upcoming construction season by extending them at
fiscal year 2010 funding levels through September 30 of this year.
My friend from Texas referenced the fact that it would be bad if we
did not do this before March 4, and I agree with him thoroughly. I am
hopeful that he has the same attitude with reference to the overall
aspect of any kind of shutdown of the government. A shutdown would be
bad in any of its particulars, and not just as he referenced it, that I
agree with, in the area of transportation and infrastructure.
This extension allows States to continue signing contracts, managing
planning and construction, and paying for vital transportation and
infrastructure projects while we finalize a multiyear authorization to
update our network. As all of us know, our interstate highways, roads,
and bridges are in desperate need of repairs and improvements. All you
have to do is drive around Washington to prove that.
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers in their 2009
report card, which rates the operational condition and future capacity
of dams, levees, railways, roads, bridges, and transit by letter grade,
our Nation's surface infrastructure is rated at a ``D.''
{time} 1340
This is deplorable and, frankly, it's embarrassing--embarrassing for
several reasons. I came here in 1992. We were advocating on both sides
of the aisle that we should be about the business of repairing bridges
in this country, and the multiples are enormous from that time. We were
talking 14,000 bridges.
More than 26 percent of our Nation's bridges today are either
``structurally deficient or functionally obsolete,'' with the number of
such bridges in urban areas on the rise. And we have seen what
disasters can occur when a bridge collapses.
Existing rail capacity is inadequate to handle future freight and
passenger rail growth without significant investment. Last year, I took
the Amtrak to New York, and when returning to Washington, I looked at
the rail underbed. I grew up near a railroad in Altamonte Springs,
Florida. And the railbed in that time where I grew up in the 40s was
100 percent better than the railbed just outside of this city on the
Amtrak line. That's ridiculous.
Our interstate highway program has changed little since it was
created in the 1950s by the distinguished President, Dwight
Eisenhower's vision. With ever-increasing congestion--and we see it
right around here--and improvement costs, our Nation's roads were even
poorer at a D-minus in 2009. One-third of America's roads are in poor
or mediocre condition, and 45 percent of major urban highways are
congested.
Just last January, the main road in and out of one of the cities that
I'm privileged to represent, the city of Pahokee, was closed for 17
days because of sunken asphalt. Now, that may not sound like much, a
little old town like Pahokee being cut off. But a collapsed culvert had
created a 2-inch dip measuring 252 square feet in size on the
northbound lane of State Road 715. This resulted in hours-long detours
for commuters and trucks, stymied local and regional business, and
regrettably reduced access to Glades General Hospital and Pahokee
Airport.
Similar stories can be found throughout my home State of Florida and
indeed in communities across this Nation. We can, and we must, do
better.
Just as routine and preventive health care costs much less than a
trip to the emergency room, regular maintenance and improvements cost
less than major overhauls and replacement. According to Transportation
for America, for every dollar that we spend today on maintenance, we
avoid $14 in future costs.
H.R. 662 obligates up to $42.5 billion for Federal-aid highway
programs and $639 million for the equity bonus programs to ensure that
States receive in Federal highway funds a certain portion of the
gasoline taxes that they contribute.
Investing in our Nation's roads is about more than getting from point
A to point B faster, which would be, in many respects, reason enough
for many commuters. It's about having more time, about having more
money, and about having more opportunities to work, play, live, and
enjoy life. Americans spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic
at a cost to the economy of $78.2 billion. That averages to $710 per
motorist. Furthermore, poor conditions cost motorists $67 billion a
year in repairs and operating costs.
One way to ease congestion is getting more people to use public
transit. In fact, transit use increased 25 percent between 1995 and
2005, faster than any other mode of transportation. However, nearly
half of American households do not have access to bus or rail transit,
and only 25 percent have what they consider to be a good alternative.
On that note, increasing the capacity of our transportation and
infrastructure network means nothing if our roads are not safe. Each
year, thousands of people die in road crashes in the United States, and
millions more are injured or disabled. As cochair of the Congressional
Caucus on Global Road Safety, I recognize that road crash fatalities
and disabilities represent a serious public health concern. This
extension authorizes $742 billion in highway-safety programs
administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, as
well as $597 million for truck-safety activities of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, in order to help save lives and minimize
crash-related injuries.
Safe, dependable, and efficient transportation is essential to our
economic recovery and our Nation's competitiveness. At a time when
unemployment in the construction industry is double the national rate,
this extension provides much-needed market stability to create and
sustain thousands of jobs.
The transportation sector has played a crucial role in rebuilding the
U.S. economy, most recently through the Recovery Act, which provided
$27.5 billion in new funding for surface transportation programs
through the existing Federal-aid highway program and $8.4 billion for
transit. In addition, $1.5 billion and $600 million were made available
in two rounds, respectively, by the discretionary grant program known
as TIGER, the Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery.
Extending these highway, transit, and other surface transportation
programs is not only essential to our Nation's continued economic
recovery, but also to our long-term prosperity and future. Today, we
find ourselves on the cusp of a great opportunity, the opportunity to
make meaningful investments in the future of this country, improve our
quality of life and cut future debt. We need a truly interconnected,
multi-modal system that effectively utilizes high-speed rail, light
rail, streetcars, van pools, motor carriers by water, efficient buses,
cars and
[[Page H1477]]
bikes. We need a system that helps ensure that lower-income workers can
also get to and hold down jobs, a system that gets people where they
need to go, increases our energy independence through new sources and
innovative technologies, improves air quality, reduces traffic deaths
and injuries, and creates jobs by supporting America's hard-hit
construction and manufacturing sectors.
It is imperative that we not only extend the surface transportation
programs through the end of the current fiscal year, but also pass a
multi-year--yes, multi-year, as many as a 6-year--reauthorization as
soon as possible. A new multi-year surface transportation authorization
will create even more jobs and ensure that we can meet our growing
transportation needs in the 21st century in a way that is affordable,
efficient, innovative, resilient, sustainable, and accountable.
In this country, highways, roads, bridges and transit are neither
Democratic nor Republican. They serve all Americans and help bring us
closer together, literally.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Carlsbad, California (Mr. Bilbray), a member of the
Energy and Commerce Committee.
{time} 1350
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I would
just like to say, Mr. Speaker, I think this is an opportunity for all
of us, both Democrats and Republicans, to talk openly and frankly about
the fact that we are at a point in our history where we need to not
only spend money, but we have to be smarter, too. I think too often in
Washington we are thinking that our degree of efficiency or compassion
is based on how much we spend and not how well we accomplish our goals.
I would only ask my colleague who just addressed us to join with some
of us who say that we need to be smarter. As a former member of the Air
Resources Board in California, I can show you studies that have been
done by very noted research people that point out--one study alone that
says we could reduce fuel and emission problems by 22.6 percent. But to
do that, we not only have to address what is the private sector doing
in Detroit in building cars, but what is the government sector doing in
controlling those cars when they are on the road.
One of the biggest problems we have is Washington sends money out for
projects, but we do not hold those projects to a standard that has been
upgraded to 21st century standards. An example: There are studies that
have shown that 97 percent of all stop signs that you and I stop for
every day, Mr. Speaker, don't have to be stop signs. Those could be
yield signs. Now granted, there are those sites with sight-distance
problems where you have to have stops. But when you and I go drive down
out of our home tomorrow morning, think about when you stop, why are
you stopping? It's not for safety. Lord forbid, it's not for fuel
consumption or for environmental conservation; it is because the law
says you have to stop, even though there is a cost in environmental and
economic impact. The safety factor is not the factor being determined.
It is easier for a local government to give you a ticket on a stop
sign, or at least that perception is there, when a yield sign is just
as enforceable.
A good example is why is a four-way stop always the easiest and the
cheapest way for a government to be able to control an intersection
when everybody knows that a roundabout has been proven to be a major
source of safety and environmental and economic benefit.
The fact is that communities that have been brave enough to try new
traffic control, like the new computer-engineered roundabouts and
traffic circles, have not only proven that it reduces congestion by a
huge amount because it stops the queuing approach; it also eliminates
that pollution that stop signs cause by five times more polluting than
allowing somebody to drive through an intersection at low speed, that
roundabouts do. But it also eliminates, as the gentleman who just spoke
brought up, the safety factor. A roundabout eliminates the T-boning
where fatalities occur. Actually, by going to the next generation of
traffic control, we can not only address fuel consumption and
pollution, but we can make our roads safer.
So I really call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's
look at making sure that when we send this money over to the States and
the cities and the counties--and I was a mayor. I ran a transit system,
the San Diego trolley system. We helped build that system. We need to
make sure that we are doing the right thing in government. And one of
the things that we are not doing in government that we can do and lead
through example, if we truly care about public safety, environmental
protection and fuel efficiency, if we really want to lead, let's not
mandate on the private sector that they have to do something if we're
not willing to look at our colleagues here in government and say: We
have to reform ourselves.
I call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let's work
together. Let's start saying, look, local governments, counties and
cities; the environmental, economic, and safety impacts of you not
upgrading your traffic control to an efficient system is costing our
economy 22.6 percent more than it should. It is costing our environment
22.6 percent that it shouldn't. And the fact is, we don't know how many
lives we can save until we are willing to do that.
I call on both sides, let's get together and work on this and set an
example for the rest of the world.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I say to my colleague and my friend from
California, sign me up.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), the ranking member
of the Railroad Subcommittee and my classmate. We came here together.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I thank my classmate for giving me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the rule. I would like to begin by
discussing the importance of reauthorizing the surface transportation
bill. It has been a long time since we had a bill; since 2005, in fact.
I cannot overemphasize the importance of completing this bill as soon
as possible, not only to rebuild our Nation's infrastructure but for
the desperately needed jobs it will create.
Transportation projects are a natural economic development tool. The
Department of Transportation has indicated for every $1 billion
invested in transportation, it creates 42,000 permanent jobs and $2.1
billion in economic activity. It also saves the lives of 1,400 people.
You can't argue with those numbers.
Transportation funding is a win/win for everyone involved. States get
to improve their transportation infrastructure, which creates economic
development, puts people back to work, enhances safety, and improves
local communities.
Yet in delaying the passage of this much-needed legislation any
further, we are doing a disservice to the driving population, and the
Nation as a whole. The States who are battling red ink want to see this
bill passed. The construction companies who are laying off employees
want to see this bill passed. And the citizens waiting in traffic jams,
like my constituents on the I-4 corridor in central Florida, want to
see this bill passed. If this Congress fails to pass a real
transportation funding bill, our Nation's transportation
infrastructure, and the citizens who use it, will suffer for years to
come.
There are numerous studies that have come out in the last few months
documenting the current state of affairs. The American Society of Civil
Engineers has found that this country's infrastructure ranked ``D''--
barely passing, certainly not acceptable for a superpower like the
United States.
So we need to really pass this bill and really pass a full 6-year
reauthorization bill so the States can plan and the communities can
plan for their transportation needs.
I have to take a moment to talk about high-speed rail because come
Friday--it is a very sad state of affairs for the people of Florida.
The Governor of Florida, Rick Scott, has indicated that he is going to
turn down $2.5 billion for Federal high-speed rail funding. That is
very sad for the people of Florida because we have worked for a number
of years across the aisle. Mr. Mica and I have worked. And, in fact,
[[Page H1478]]
when I was first elected, for every dollar we sent to Washington, we
were receiving 77 cents in Florida transportation dollars. I worked to
change that formula, and now we get 92 cents, and that is $5 billion.
Well, for once Florida has an opportunity to get some of their
gasoline tax dollars back and to put Floridians to work. We have 12
percent unemployment. With the 90 percent funding from the Federal
Government and the 10 percent private, that would generate over 60,000
jobs. But it is so sad, and it is really a no-brainer for the Governor.
He indicated he spent over $100 million to be the Governor of the State
of Florida, and he indicated that he wanted to put Floridians to work.
Well, Mr. Governor, how are you going to put them to work? What are
you going to work them on besides talk? What really puts people to work
is transportation and infrastructure, and it is a no-brainer, the high-
speed rail project. The communities have worked on it. In fact, in 1980
Bob Graham, being the Governor, appointed me to a committee to work on
high-speed rail. Let me just say, when there is no vision, the people
perish.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
And I would also take this opportunity, if she would yield to me, to
ask her a question.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. The previous SAFETEA-LU measure provided
some funding for a high-speed rail corridor. This particular provision
does not. Am I correct that if we were to do the high-speed rail
project, that the lowest estimate is it would provide 30,000 jobs?
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Sir, that is the lowest; but it would provide
60,000 jobs because you're not just looking at the construction, but
everywhere you build a station is economic development, and it is jobs.
Let me say, this is public-private. In other words, we would be
contracting the jobs out. Companies, private companies, would be
building these stations. In fact, over eight different companies have
indicated that they want to be partners with this. It is sort of the
way we build airports. The Federal Government goes in and puts the
major infrastructure down, and then there are private operators.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again
expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30
seconds.
{time} 1400
Ms. BROWN of Florida. All I've got to say is that I have been elected
for 30 years and this is in my opinion the worst politics I have ever
seen. The Bible says, ``Without vision, the people perish.'' The people
of Florida are going to suffer. We have a roughly 12 percent
unemployment rate. That's over 2 million people that's unemployed. This
is an opportunity to put 60,000 people to work. That translates not
just in jobs, but if you have a job, you can pay your mortgage until
the foreclosure goes down. It goes on and on. I want to thank the
President, the Vice President, the mayors and all of the communities
who have worked together for this project.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I enjoy my colleagues coming to the floor and talking
about us being without a vision and that the people will perish. People
are perishing all across our country because of the excessive spending
that this administration and the previous two Congresses have placed
upon the people. Excessive debt. This year, the President has estimated
we will have a $1.650 trillion debt. And as best I can tell you, some
sense of reality and dose of discipline must be invoked upon this
Congress. That's what we're attempting to do not only by this bill
today but by also following regular order, by allowing Members of
Congress to come and speak very clearly on the floor, by allowing an
open process, things which were never allowed in the previous two
Congresses.
I appreciate Members coming to the floor and talking about what's in
the best interests of the country. Madam Speaker, the bottom line is
that the Republican majority is going to do something about jobs. We're
going to do something about spending. We will bring discipline,
authority, responsibility and actions directly to the floor of the
House of Representatives as opposed to spending which was out of
control, ideas which ran amok, and a lack of vision and clarity for our
future. I'm very proud of what we're doing here today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, when the gentlewoman from Florida was speaking about
the light rail program that may expire on Friday, and I am hopeful that
our Governor will understand that, a retort came from my friend from
Texas about her saying about a lack of vision is what causes these
kinds of matters. The gentlewoman from Florida was talking about light
rail. I don't recall my friend from Texas being upset when we did light
rail in Houston, and I was for that. I might add all of us know that we
need to move people as best we can in other methodologies, as I have
described earlier.
Madam Speaker, Democrats and Republicans must work together to invest
more in our Nation's aging transportation infrastructure network;
invest more, not less. We have a vision for America's future
transportation infrastructure. Now we need the leadership to make it a
reality. I shudder to think what would have happened to this Nation's
overall national security had Dwight Eisenhower not had the vision and
those Congresspersons who were here and the American people did not
agree that we would have an interstate highway system. I understand
that it takes money to do these things.
Let's look at Minnesota as an example. When the bridge collapsed in
Minneapolis, tragically, lives were lost and a system that was a city's
lifeblood had to be repaired. It has been repaired. But wouldn't it
have been so much better, not just to avoid the tragedy, that's
obvious, but could we not have as we do see in some of these
situations, that these bridges need repair, these levees need repair.
The Congresspersons from Louisiana were talking about the levees that
were blown away during Katrina 10 years before that happened. I stand
here today and talk about a levee in the Everglades that unless it's
repaired, it is going to cause a disaster. You either pay me now on
these things or you pay a whole lot later. We're not talking about not
spending, not investing. We're talking about doing it wisely and with
accountability.
While I support the underlying bill, I would like to express my
disappointment at the closed process. My colleague comes down here and
talks about all the Members are going to get a chance to come down here
and they're going to get a chance to express their ideas. Well, there
may be some Members that may have had an amendment that might innovate
something or might improve our transportation system. My friend from
Texas will claim that this is technically not a closed rule, and it's
true that the rule did allow one--one--amendment by Chairman Mica, who
wrote the underlying bill that I support. You heard that correctly. The
only Member who is allowed to offer an amendment is the same Member who
wrote the bill.
On January 5, the distinguished Speaker of this House for whom I have
great respect, and he is a friend of mine, stated the following:
``Above all else, we will welcome the battle of ideas, encourage it,
and engage in it--openly, honestly, and respectfully. As the Chamber
closest to the people, the House works best when it is allowed to work
its will.''
My colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) offered a motion for
an open rule, so these important matters could be debated openly on the
House floor. But this amendment was defeated last night, or yesterday,
in a party-line vote. In addition, I also made a motion to amend the
rule and make in order an amendment by Delegate Holmes Norton of
Washington, D.C. and cosponsored by Mr. Moran of Virginia which would
simply have permitted the District of Columbia to spend its own money
after March 4--in other words, this coming Friday--in the event of a
government shutdown. That was defeated on a party-line vote.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, does this sound like an open process to
you? I
[[Page H1479]]
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and instead pass this
much-needed extension through a truly open process that allows all
Members to offer amendments.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I will say that this process that we
have had as opposed to having it just mixed in a resolution allows for
a motion to recommit for the gentleman and his party, and it is my hope
that they will take up that open process that we talked about where
we'll see what their ideas are. In a few minutes we'll find out when
they make that choice.
Madam Speaker, we've heard a lot of things during this debate, up to
and including about thoughts and ideas about shutting down the
government, that that looms ahead of us. Not one Republican, not one
Republican, is talking about shutting down the government. It is an
issue that Republican leadership, including the gentleman Mr. Boehner,
the Speaker of this House, has openly talked about that we will do
every single thing that we can do to avoid a government shutdown.
So it's my hope that this body would recognize, we're not offering
that as a threat to the American people. We're open for doing business.
We're trying to make sure we not only address this issue weeks ahead of
time but that we're forthright about how we would go about giving
options, opportunities, how we would work with the President and the
Senate to make sure that we avoid this from happening.
Secondly, we heard about a vision statement, a vision statement that
evidently is lacking now from Republicans. Well, the facts of the case
are very simple and, that is, the vision that our country sees ahead
right now is diminishment of jobs, of a free enterprise system that is
overburdened by rules and regulations, a policy that comes from this
administration that is about destroying jobs, whether it be from the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission
or, government-wide, an assault on the free enterprise system and upon
employers.
{time} 1410
So what we are trying to do is to offer some reassurance today that
we will go ahead and reauthorize the Surface Transportation bill and
that there will be the understanding that the gentleman--the fabulous
chairman of the committee, John Mica from Florida--will, in fact, lead
in a bipartisan effort with Ranking Member Rahall to provide the
opportunity to make sure that there is public involvement, that open
hearings are held, that we in committee talk about this, and that every
Member is given a chance to participate.
That is what Republicans are now willing to do: regular order, open
processes, and a chance to make sure, as they find their way here to
the floor, that every single bill we want, where possible, allows for a
Democrat motion to recommit.
Madam Speaker, you heard me say earlier today that my Republican
colleagues and I are committed to an open process and to far, far more
accountability, transparency, and an open process than what our friends
have ever allowed us for the last 4 years.
Today's legislation is a step in the right direction. The underlying
bill has bipartisan support, even up at the Rules Committee, where
Republicans and Democrats support this underlying legislation. It went
through regular order, which is a structure which worked, and open
debate on the floor. This is just the first step in the necessary
transportation funding--an open dialogue with the American people,
cities, States, counties--and it is essential that the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee takes the time to review where it is and
to come up with the recommendations in allowing for a future that will
be even brighter and better.
Allowing this funding gives the States the tools that they need. We
are working, as Chairman Mica is, with counties, cities, States, and
with elected officials all across the country. The hard work that he is
doing pays off again today. I will predict that we will pass this rule
and this bill on a bipartisan basis because of the way our Speaker,
John Boehner, our majority leader, Eric Cantor, and also the great
chairman, John Mica, insist on making sure that the floor is run with
openness for the body. I look forward to working with Chairman Mica and
the rest of the committee on that endeavor.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adopting House Resolution 128 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on ordering the previous question on House Resolution 129;
and adopting House Resolution 129, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 256,
nays 169, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 155]
YEAS--256
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--169
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
[[Page H1480]]
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--7
Carney
Giffords
Hanna
Hinojosa
Honda
Pelosi
Simpson
{time} 1437
Messrs. OWENS, FRANK of Massachusetts, and GUTIERREZ changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. DeFAZIO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. CARNEY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 155, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, on March 2, 2011, I inadvertently voted
``yea'' on rollcall No. 155. I intended to vote ``no.''
____________________