Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 56 (Wednesday, April 18, 2012)

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 56 (Wednesday, April 18, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1932-H1962]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2012, PART II

General Leave

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on H.R. 4348.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?

[[Page H1933]]

There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 619 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4348.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 1355

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4348) to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway
safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of
the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law
reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Westmoreland in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, today we bring up the Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2012. This is the second part of an
extension that we passed previously. Just before the Congress recessed
and went into the Easter work period and holiday, the House did pass a
90-day extension, and that extension expires on June 30, 2012. The
extension before us today is an additional 90-day extension. The
purpose of this extension is so that we can hopefully bring about
resolution and conference legislation to complete our transportation
bill.
Now, the previous extension was the ninth extension, and the
Democrats--the other side of the aisle--were forced to pass a sixth
extension, so I'm hoping that this will be our last extension and that
it will also provide us a vehicle to conclude this important work that
so many jobs across this country are relying on. The building of our
Nation's infrastructure is tied to this work and to the completion of
this important task.
This is a fairly clean extension. There are a couple of provisions in
here, I think, that will provide increased energy for the country; and
if anyone has not felt the pain at the pump, all they need to do is go
to a local gas station. I saw today that the lowest-cost gas in a local
station not a couple blocks from here was $4.45 a gallon. This
particularly hurts the working men and women of America and those on
fixed or limited incomes. I think the provision that we have here is an
excellent provision, and I'll talk a little bit more about this.
This again is a vehicle that can deliver us to the completion of the
important work. This extension has levels of funding that are
consistent with the transportation appropriations bill which was signed
by the President in November. Then we'll consider, I believe, three
amendments that have been made in order by the Rules Committee. Let me
talk about them again very briefly.
First, the Keystone pipeline provision. This administration is still
meandering not only on transportation legislation but also on energy
legislation, and it has not found its way, unfortunately, for the
American people.

{time} 1400

But this bill can provide us reliable sources of energy. We're
talking about a pipeline and a source from a good ally and neighbor in
the North American continent. We're not talking about relying on
Venezuela, the Middle East, or Nigeria, where we get a lot of our
supplies for energy today. So it can provide again some stability, some
reduction in price for the consumer, particularly when they're so hard
hit at this time. We will have more to talk about with it.
In regard to the Keystone pipeline, this pipeline has been studied to
death. This administration, for over 3 years, has delayed approval. The
President has approved a small part in one section of the country--or
at least he says he would. You can't build a pipeline that can actually
deliver energy at a lower cost in reliable fuel in a piecemeal fashion.
The Keystone pipeline has been studied for about 3\1/2\ years now,
while they built the entire Alaska pipeline in that period of time. So
the time for studying, for delay, and for not acting on reducing energy
costs and increasing supply has ended.
Additionally, we have a couple of other provisions in here which I'm
supportive of. One is the RESTORE Act, which creates the Gulf
Restoration Trust Fund, and that provides for a fair and equitable
manner for division of the penalties collected by those responsible for
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. I think that that is a provision that
can also help a lot of our Gulf States that were hard hit and impacted
by that disaster.
Finally, I think another amendment that I think is very laudatory is
one by Mr. Ribble that has been made in order, and that carries, from
H.R. 7, a lot of the streamlining provisions that we think are so
important to getting projects done.
President Obama promised us infrastructure when they sold a $787
billion so-called stimulus package. Mr. Oberstar and I came back here.
At the time, they were looking at a $250 to $300 billion stimulus bill,
of which 50 percent would be, in fact, infrastructure. As it turned
out, it was 6 or 7 percent. That's some $63 billion.
Last October, there was still 35 percent of the $63 billion for
infrastructure stuck in the Treasury in Washington, D.C., 2\1/2\ years
after we passed the stimulus. So you can pass all the transportation
bills you want, and if you can't deliver the project and cut the red
tape and paperwork that Washington thrives on, then you can't get
anything done. That provision is so important in moving transportation
legislation forward that can make a difference in getting projects
done.
In the hearings that we did across the country, starting in Mr.
Rahall's district--the Democrat leader of the committee--in Beckley,
West Virginia, we heard at every single hearing all the way to the west
coast when we did a bipartisan, unprecedented bicameral with Senator
Boxer hearing on that coast, every single hearing, almost without
question, most of the witnesses all said that we needed to speed up the
projects.
``Shovel ready'' has become a national joke, and we've got to end
that sad joke that doesn't allow us to go forward. I think the Ribble
amendment will do that.
With that, I think we have a vehicle that we can get to conference
and work in a bipartisan and bicameral manner to get the job done.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, April 17, 2012.
Hon. John Mica,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastrcture,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Mica, I am writing concerning H.R. 4348, the
``Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, Part II,''
which is scheduled for floor consideration this week.
As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has
jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Code. Subtitle D of
Title I of this bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
by extending the current Highway Trust Fund expenditure
authority and the associated Federal excise taxes to
September 30, 2012. However, in order to expedite this
legislation for floor consideration, the Committee will forgo
action on this bill. This is being done with the
understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the
Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its
jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation.
I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 4348, and would ask
that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be
included in the Congressional Record during floor
consideration.
Sincerely,
Dave Camp,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, April 17, 2012.
Hon. Dave Camp,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4348, the ``Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012,
Part II.'' The Committee on Transportation and

[[Page H1934]]

Infrastructure recognizes the Committee on Ways and Means has
a jurisdictional interest in H.R. 4348, and I appreciate your
effort to facilitate consideration of this bill.
I also concur with you that forgoing action on this bill
does not in any way prejudice the Committee on Ways and Means
with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this bill
or similar legislation in the future, and I would support
your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate number of
conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this
legislation.
I will include our letters on H.R. 4348 in the
Congressional Record during floor consideration of the bill.
Again, I appreciate your cooperation regarding this
legislation and I look forward to working with the Committee
on Ways and Means as the bill moves through the legislative
process.
Sincerely,
John L. Mica,
Chairman.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the last long-term surface transportation authorization
expired on September 30, '09. We continue to limp along, patching
together our Nation's transportation system through short-term
extensions that cause uncertainty and create chaos for construction
crews and local communities across the country and our State
transportation departments.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported the House
Republican leadership's misguided, 5-year surface transportation bill
on February 13 of this year. The Rules Committee approved a rule
governing its consideration on the floor on February 15. That was 9
weeks ago this day. During that time, the Republican leadership has
failed to find the votes among its Members to pass that bill.
Yet, instead of working across party lines as we have traditionally
done for decades on transportation policy, the extreme right wing of
their party continues to hold the process hostage to their ideological
tirade that the Federal Government has no business in supporting a
national transportation system.
Three weeks ago, I rose to oppose another extension, the ninth
extension since these critical job-creating transportation programs
expired in '09, because Republicans refused to move the process forward
by bringing up the bipartisan Senate-passed bill but, instead, merely
wanted to kick the can down the road once again. Mr. Chairman, we are
running out of road.
I oppose the short-term extension because I cannot, for the life of
me, figure out what difference the Republican leadership hopes to
achieve over the next 12 weeks that they were unable to achieve over
the previous 6 weeks. I fail to understand the perverse notion that if
we simply fed their dangerous addiction to serial addictions one more
time, the skies would magically part and the Republican leadership
would miraculously garner enough votes on their side of the aisle to
pass H.R. 7. That was the 5-year bill reported by the T&I Committee,
something they have failed to do for months.
Last week, we heard the Republican leadership again would be bringing
up a short-term extension as a ticket to conference with the Senate.
That's the bill that is before us today.
When compared with H.R. 7, which is a fatally flawed bill that would
mortgage America's future at subprime rates, a clean extension is a
vehicle to keep the ball rolling, provided that the Republican
leadership will truly allow us to go to conference with the other body.
Unlike H.R. 7, a clean extension does not make shortsighted cuts to
surface transportation investments that would destroy jobs and economic
growth. These cuts are out. We're talking about funding at current
levels.
Under the scheme advanced by the majority, public transit revenue
would have been shifted to highways. Transit would have been bailed out
with a one-time transfer of $40 billion from the general fund, robbing
middle class Americans to pay for the shuffle. Under the clean
extension that we're considering today, this misguided shell game is
gone, fortunately.
The majority's proposal fails to close all the existing loopholes and
Buy America laws. These gaping loopholes are being exploited by foreign
competitors, like China, who are stealing American jobs and undermining
our ability to create more American jobs and to revive American
manufacturing. Under today's bill, locking in these loopholes is out
and these provisions can be revisited in a long-term bill.
Under a clean extension, the majority's poison pill to needlessly
eliminate Occupational Safety and Health Administration protections for
hazmat workers, as was originally in H.R. 7, thankfully, is gone today.
The majority's efforts to subsidize private transit companies and
mandate the use of private engineering firms on Federal-aid highway
projects is gone in today's bill.
Instead of turning back the clock nearly half a century on America's
greatness and the incredible work we have done to grow our Nation, to
build a thriving economy, and to lead the global market, we should be
working together to develop a bipartisan bill that can pass both bodies
and be signed into law.
Taking the other side at their word, that they are serious about
moving the process forward--I'm beginning to think that may be a likely
scenario--passage of this extension of current law through the end of
the fiscal year will allow us to go to conference with the other body
on their bipartisan multiyear bill which passed with the support of
three-quarters of the Senate. That is 74 votes in that other body.

{time} 1410

How many pieces of legislation do you get that many votes on in the
other body? A long-term bill will provide the certainty that States
need to invest and proceed with their plans that have been long on the
books. It will provide the certainty that highway and transit
contractors desperately need to give them the confidence to hire that
one more worker.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the chair of the Highway
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4348 extends the surface transportation programs
through September 30, 2012, at funding levels consistent with the
fiscal year 2012 transportation appropriations bill, which we passed in
November. Under the current extension, the highway, transit, and
highway safety programs are set to expire on June 30. This legislation
will allow these programs to continue through the fiscal year and to
provide predictability during the summer construction season.
This bill also includes provisions related to the approval of the
Keystone pipeline. With the rising gas prices and uncertainty in the
Middle East, it is vital that we complete construction of this crucial
pipeline in order to help secure our Nation's energy resources. If we
don't do this, Mr. Chairman, all we will be doing is helping foreign
energy producers.
I had originally hoped that the House would be able to move H.R. 7,
the 5-year surface transportation reauthorization bill that was passed
by our committee in February. Unfortunately, we were not able to bring
H.R. 7 to the House floor at this time. Instead, we will use this bill
as a vehicle to conference with the Senate-passed surface
transportation reauthorization bill.
There were three amendments that were made in order by the Rules
Committee, and I would like to express my support for all three. Mr.
Boustany's amendment would require that we spend the revenue we are
collecting for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund on Army Corps of
Engineers projects, as opposed to using this revenue to offset spending
elsewhere in the Federal budget. This is a commonsense solution to help
upgrade our Nation's ports and maintain our global economic
competitiveness. Just this morning, we held a hearing on the importance
to our entire economy of our inland waterway system, and Mr. Boustany's
amendment will certainly help in that regard.
Mr. Ribble's amendment is based on the environmental streamlining
provisions that were included in H.R. 7. This amendment would eliminate
duplication by providing a single system to review decisions. It
reduces bureaucratic delay by requiring concurrent, instead of
consecutive, project reviews and setting deadlines for the completion
of environmental reviews. These changes could cut the delivery process
in half and could save taxpayers many, many billions over the next
several years.

[[Page H1935]]

The last two studies by the Federal Highway Administration said the
average highway project takes 13 years, one study said 15 years. That
is far too long. Other developed nations are doing these projects in
half the time or less than we are.
Mr. McKinley's amendment includes the text of H.R. 2273, the Coal
Residuals Reuse and Management Act. This amendment would prohibit the
United States Environmental Protection Agency from driving coal-powered
plants out of existence and doubling and tripling our utility bills.
The U.S. has been called the Saudi Arabia of coal, Mr. Chairman. If
we do not use our coal in a clean and safe way, we will hurt millions
of poor, lower-income, and working people all across this Nation.
I salute Chairman Mica for his hard work on this bill for the last
several months, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4348 and the
subsequent amendments.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member on
our Transit and Highways Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from
the State of Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. 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.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chair
of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this is a highway and infrastructure bill. That means
it is a jobs bill. Now, I would remind my colleagues and those watching
that the President said back in January, as part of his weekly address,
that he would do whatever it takes, whatever it takes, to create jobs.
There is not a more shovel-ready project than the Keystone XL pipeline,
period.
Secretary Clinton said in October of 2010, I am inclined to support
this project. In August of 2011, she indicated that there was no reason
why they couldn't give an approval or a denial by the end of last year.

{time} 1420

This is 20,000 direct jobs, more than 100,000 indirect jobs, a $7
billion privately funded pipeline that will subscribe to the pipeline
safety bill that this committee as well as the Energy and Commerce
Committee worked on, that the President signed this last year, raising
the standards, raising the fines for those that violate those
standards. It is a better pipeline safety route than ever before. I
have to say for those detractors, the route has been changed through
Nebraska. It will no longer go through that aquifer.
We will bring as much as 800,000 barrels of oil from the oil sands in
Canada. As these gas prices continue to go up, Americans understand
supply and demand; 800,000 barrels a day that we can get from our
friends, the Canadians. If we don't do so, where is it going to go?
China. China is already preparing to spend billions of dollars to
instead build that pipeline to Vancouver, send it to China to be
refined and, guess what, we will get none of that refined oil back.
Some detractors of this project say why don't we just build a
refinery in North Dakota. Well, let's say we did. Are you not going to
still then build a pipeline to connect it with the supply routes across
the country?
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MICA. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, we haven't built a new refinery since 1976.
EPA will not allow new refineries to be built. We have spent instead
billions of dollars to expand the refineries that we have.
Under regular order we moved this Keystone pipeline last summer. It
passed on the House floor two-to-one. There is no reason why a
construction project like this shouldn't be in this bill. I look
forward to the passage of this bill later this afternoon with the
inclusion of the Keystone XL pipeline.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida, the ranking member on our Subcommittee on
Railroads, Ms. Corrine Brown.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Thank you, Chairman Mica and Mr. Rahall.
I will vote for this 3-month extension. But I have got to tell you,
the Republican leadership has turned the House floor into
Frankenstein's laboratory. Instead of bringing up a transportation bill
that could get the support

[[Page H1936]]

from both sides, they brought a bill to the floor that couldn't get
support from either side. Now, after they couldn't convince the Tea
Party Members that transportation is actually very important to our
economy, they're taking parts from different bills and creating the
monster that they call ``transportation.''
It's a very sad time for transportation in the House of
Representatives. The Republican leadership has ruined a process that
used to be bipartisan, from a committee that used to be bipartisan.
This is not the way to run the U.S. House of Representatives, and it is
clearly not the way the American people want it to be run.
I've been on the Transportation Committee for 20 years, and it has
never been partisan. We were the committee that moved people, goods,
and services, and put millions of people to work. Now we gut funding,
abandon core programs like transit and hazmat safety, and argue about
issues that aren't even germane to transportation.
The Republican leadership has had a war on our Transportation
Committee from the very beginning. First, they removed the firewalls
from the trust fund and would no doubt be raiding it if we had any
money in it. They cut the size of our committee in half. Then they gave
us all freshmen Members, many who don't know how to say anything but
no, no, no, no, no, no, no. And then for 2 straight years they've
gutted transportation funding in the Ryan budget.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool
all of the people all of the time.
President Barack Obama said recently that Republicans used to like to
build roads. All of our stakeholders support a comprehensive
transportation bill, and I am hoping that we can pass--I hate to say
it--the Senate bill--we used to do the work--but I hope we can pass the
Senate bill. I really want to say thank God for the United States
Senate because finally we have some people that are pulling together a
transportation bill that really will put the American people to work.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska, who's the leader and one of the
authors of the Keystone provisions of this legislation, Mr. Terry.
Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Certainly, the President of the United States knows how to say
``no.'' He says ``no'' to the Keystone pipeline, turning down its
application just 3 months ago. This gives the United States access to
probably the largest known oil reserve sitting there in a pool in North
America, but the President won't allow us to have access to it. Yet
during this administration, gas prices at the pump have gone up 120
percent.
People in my district keep asking me, What's the energy policy? I
have to tell them I don't know. He kills the pipeline giving us access
to oil which would increase supply in the United States, yet sends
billions of dollars to Solyndra and solar panel companies to further
flood the market with more solar panels. So I don't know what the plan
is to lower gas prices because he's not giving us access.
Now, let's look at this $7 billion privately funded--that's right,
maybe that's the problem: it's privately funded--infrastructure project
to bring us more gasoline. It's denied. A $7 billion project to bring
20,000 new jobs. The President says he'll do anything to create new
jobs, but kills the pipeline that would get union workers off the
benches and into the fields working.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MICA. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. TERRY. He kills those 20,000 direct jobs. There's millions of
jobs, if we just used our own resources. Do you know that we can be
completely energy secure using our own resources? But this
administration lacks the will to be able to do that.
Mr. RAHALL. May I inquire of the time remaining, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia has 18 minutes remaining,
and the gentleman from Florida has 15\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. RAHALL. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New
York, a valued member of our Committee on Transformation and
Infrastructure, Mr. Jerry Nadler.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4348, the
second Surface Transportation Extension Act that we have considered
this year.
It has become eminently clear that the Republicans in the House
cannot get consensus among themselves on a long-term transportation
bill. They can't get consensus on a short-term transportation bill.
They can barely pass this 90-day extension. The only way to get it
through is to yet again add the Keystone pipeline and other anti-
environmental measures. The Republican leadership keeps playing the
same cards over and over, but nobody is playing this game anymore. The
Senate has moved on. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill. We should do
the same.
The purpose of this extension is to serve as a vehicle to formally go
to conference with the Senate. I must confess that I might be inclined
to vote for it on that basis. If it passes, the House position in
conference will essentially be an extension of current law, putting the
policy reforms in the Senate bill on a stronger footing; but I fear
that this is really just a delaying tactic and a smokescreen.
For a year and a half, the House Republicans have stubbornly refused
to work with Democrats to develop a bipartisan bill, completely
upending the historical traditions of our committee. This is despite
the fact that there are plenty of individual Republican Members who are
willing to work with us on certain issues.
When H.R. 7, the original Republican long-term reauthorization bill,
was introduced, several Republican Members joined me on an amendment to
preserve the transit funding that would have been gutted in H.R. 7.

{time} 1430

That was probably one of the reasons that H.R. 7 was ultimately
pulled before it could get to the floor. So there are clearly Members
on the other side of the aisle who would work with us to develop a
bipartisan bill, but the Republican leadership stubbornly refuses to
let that happen. Why should we expect anything different in conference?
The Republican leadership could also just bring up the Senate bill,
but they won't even allow a vote. Why? What are they afraid of? Because
they know it would pass. And what would be wrong with that? The Senate
bill isn't perfect, but it's a bipartisan compromise measure that would
put people to work right away and provide more certainty to the
transportation agencies than a stream of short-term extensions. We
could resolve this situation right now, but they continue to block
legislation that would likely pass both Chambers, on a bipartisan
basis, and be signed into law by the President.
I hope that my concerns about the intent of the other side turn out
to be unwarranted. I hope that if this extension passes, that it will
ultimately move the process along in a positive manner and that we will
have a meaningful conference that produces a good, bipartisan bill.
Passing an extension is certainly better than passing H.R. 7, but given
what has transpired so far, and given the addition of the Keystone
pipeline and other anti-environmental measures, I must reluctantly vote
``no.''
The Keystone pipeline would cut through the United States to allow
Canada to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day of tar sand oil to gulf
coast refineries. Tar sand oil extraction is destructive and dangerous.
Producing one barrel of tar sand oil releases at least three times more
global warming pollutants than conventional oil. If we allow this
expansion to occur, it will be virtually impossible to reduce global
warming. That's why the Keystone pipeline has rightfully been called a
``game-changer.'' And there is no guarantee that any of the oil
extracted would be delivered to U.S. consumers. We cannot allow such a
gigantic and irreversible step backward in the fight against global
warming. But these objections are not the administration's. The
administration simply wants to be able to complete the normal
environmental review of the Keystone pipeline provided by law to decide
whether to approve it or not. But this legislation mandates approval
regardless of the law. It supersedes the normal process. This makes it
impossible to vote for this legislation.

[[Page H1937]]

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to
the distinguished Representative, the former chair of the Government
Reform and Oversight Committee, Mr. Burton from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for
yielding.
A question: Does the President prevaricate? Does he mislead? I've
been watching him on television the last couple of days, and he says
that we only have 2 percent of the oil reserves, and we've been doing
more drilling over the past couple, 3 years than we've ever done
before. So let's look at the facts, and I hope somebody at the White
House may be paying attention.
According to the American Petroleum Institute, the number of new
permits to drill issued by the Bureau of Land Management is down 40
percent from an average of 6,444 permits in 2007 2008 to an average of
3,962 in 2009 2010. The administration is stopping drilling on public
lands. During this same time period, the number of new wells drilled on
Federal land has declined by 40 percent. And yet he keeps telling us
the reason gas prices are going up is for a number of other reasons.
The fact is, we're not drilling here. We've got more oil in oil shale
in public lands than they have in Saudi Arabia, and we're not exploring
for it.
President Obama cites that oil production is at an all-time high
during his administration. However, oil production on Federal land fell
by 11 percent last year. Oil production on private and State-owned
land--land beyond the Federal Government's grip--grew by 14 percent. So
what he's talking about is where he can't touch it, on private land,
the drilling is up a little bit. But that's only a small portion of the
oil that's available.
Federal lands hold an estimated--get this--116.4 billion barrels of
recoverable oil, enough to produce gasoline for--get this--65 million
cars and fuel oil for 3.2 million households for 60 years. And, yet,
the administration keeps saying, oh, we can't do it; we're doing
everything we can.
The American people need to know the truth. The truth is, if we use
our own natural resources, in 5, 10, 15 years we could be energy
independent. But this administration wants to put more control in the
Federal administration.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MICA. I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. This administration wants to put more and more
control in the Federal Government, in health care, in energy, in every
other area, because he believes in a European-style, socialistic
approach to government. And the American people need to know that. He
isn't giving us the facts.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished
member of our committee, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Steve Cohen.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, last week in Memphis, I met with dozens of
transportation, business, and civic officials involved in
transportation. Every one of them said, stop the partisan politics and
pass a transportation bill.
Secretary Ray LaHood, a Republican who served 12 years in this House
and 17 years as the chief of staff to Bob Michel, one of the great
Members of this group, came to Memphis. He said, Pass the
transportation bill. And he said the reason they don't want to do it is
they don't want to give President Obama any jobs because they want to
beat President Obama, and the American people don't matter. That's the
fact. The Secretary said this is the worst transportation bill he's
ever seen, and he said it shouldn't be politicized.
Transportation leaders across the country and our Republican
Transportation Secretary are begging us to take up the Senate bill, get
it passed, put Americans back to work, and improve our infrastructure.
What's going on here is political. Gas prices are soaring, yes, but
that's because of trouble in the Middle East, and that's because of oil
speculators. It's not because of the Keystone XL pipeline. That is
hooey. Domestic oil prices are set by the international market, and
more and more emerging economies are wanting and needing oil. That
causes the price to go up.
This assertion, the assertion that gas will go down because of the
pipeline, is false. In fact, if the pipeline is completed, gas prices
will go up in this country, and TransCanada said that in their papers
when they tried to get the pipeline approved.
This will not mean more energy security. It will simply mean more
money for international oil companies whose purpose is to raise money
for themselves, and they're going to ship that oil overseas. It's not
for American consumption.
Yeah, they're not Middle Eastern, yeah, they're not Venezuelan, but
they're making profit, and they're going to send that oil overseas. It
won't help America at all. And then they threw in something about coal
ash, coal ash rules that the EPA had that would have prevented a
disaster like what happened in Tennessee. It has nothing to do with
transportation. Put America back to work. Pass the Senate bill.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Let me just say I heard repeated here some things about what the
Secretary said, and he did not have favorable comments about H.R. 7. So
we've tried to bring something forward that would bring us to passing a
bill and get people to work and get this resolved. And then today the
Secretary said that the Congress would not pass a multiyear bill,
instead of saying he'd work with us and be a leader to do that.
Then the Secretary went on to say, look what they've loaded it up
with--speaking about this bill today--Keystone, coal ash, none of it
has anything to do with transportation.
Well, first of all, I guess it's difficult for the Secretary to
understand that energy costs and the pain at the pump are killing the
consumer and impacting dramatically the American people. Keystone does
have something to do with that. I guess if you have a chauffeur pick
you up in the morning and you're not pumping the gas yourself and
taking the money out of your pocket, you wouldn't understand the
relevance of Keystone.
And then coal ash, which was just referred to here by the gentleman,
it makes our surface more durable and we save money----
Mr. COHEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICA. I will not yield, and I don't like being interrupted,
especially when I have a good point.
Mr. COHEN. That's a rare time.
Mr. MICA. Coal ash, to continue, although being interrupted, makes
the surface more durable. It's important that we get value when we're
putting money into roads and pavement. So it's a very important
provision that saves costs and gets us more for our money.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. This bill is an environmental
atrocity. The majority has allowed an unrelated amendment that would
forbid the EPA--forbid them--from requiring the safe disposal of toxic
coal waste that contains arsenic, mercury, and chromium. And the
majority has allowed an amendment that would provide massive exemptions
from the National Environmental Policy Act and smothers the ability of
communities to have input into projects that could create toxic
nightmares in local neighborhoods. This is what the Republicans are
doing out here today. ``EPA,'' Every Polluter's Ally, that's what they
want to turn it into.
So what we have on top of that is a provision to build the Keystone
pipeline through the United States of America from Canada, the dirtiest
oil, by the way, in the world, bring it through the United States, and
then to bring it to Port Arthur, Texas.

{time} 1440

Now, what goes on in Port Arthur, Texas? Very interesting. I think
it's important for the American people to know what happens there. Last
year, 73 percent of all of the gasoline that was refined in Port Arthur
and in the Houston area was exported out of the United States.
Understand what I'm saying? This is oil that was found in the United
States, drilled for in the United States, sent down to Texas, refined
down there in the Houston and Port Arthur area, and then they exported
it. And where did they export it

[[Page H1938]]

to--our oil, United States oil? They exported it to China, to the
Communists.
The Republicans are here blocking an amendment that makes it possible
for us to stop the oil from the Keystone pipeline from being sent to
the Communist Chinese. Now, I hear gentlemen out here charging
President Obama with being a Socialist, but who would engage in this
kind of activity, to pretend that they want to have oil for the United
States and for our citizens, and then when I ask for an amendment to
ensure that all the oil that comes through the Keystone pipeline stays
in the United States, the Republicans say, Oh, no, you're not making
that amendment; we're going to tie your hands, Mr. Markey; you can't
make the amendment; we don't want you to make us be prohibited from
selling this oil to the Communist Chinese?
Now, ladies and gentlemen, that's just wrong. That's wrong. That oil
is American oil. That oil should stay in the United States. If we're
building this pipeline, it should stay here in the United States. We
should not be exporting American oil, with gasoline prices at $4 a
gallon, to China and to Latin America.
That's what this whole plot is about, by the way. This is a plot to
build a pipeline down to Port Arthur, Texas, tax free, and export that
oil out of the United States. That's why the amendment I requested has
not been put in order.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Keystone XL pipeline as well as the underlying bill.
The plot here is for jobs, American jobs. It's a no-brainer. Like
most Arkansans, I support this pro-jobs project that will strengthen
our national security by making us less dependent on Middle Eastern
oil.
Arkansas families and businesses are hurting due to high gas prices,
and the Keystone pipeline will bring an additional 1 million barrels of
oil per day into the United States. More supply means lower prices, and
Arkansans, as well as all Americans, need relief from these high gas
prices.
President Obama denied construction of the Keystone XL pipeline
despite years of extensive vetting for environmental impacts. Make no
mistake, the President's decision to reject the Keystone pipeline has
cost American jobs. Welspun, a manufacturer in my district, has
manufactured nearly half of the pipe for the Keystone pipeline and was
forced to lay off 60 workers after the President rejected the pipeline,
after he delayed it last year.
The Keystone pipeline will strengthen American energy security and
create tens of thousands of good American jobs. It's past time to move
the Keystone pipeline forward.
Mr. RAHALL. Time check, please, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIR. Both sides have 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute at this time.
I know there's a lot of disappointment on the other side of the aisle
because this extension and this ability to get the bill done contains
no earmarks, no tax increases, and no programs of bigger government, so
I know they're disappointed in that regard.
The other thing, too, that folks should remember is we've done
everything we can in a bipartisan way to move this process forward. I
remember working with Mr. Oberstar, the former chairman, when the
current Secretary and the President came in and said they weren't going
to do a 6-year bill when they had all the votes, huge majorities, and
they could have put people to work and gotten this done. Instead, they
gave us six extensions. So here we are trying to get the job done.
As the Cable Guy says, and my son reminds me, Dad, we're gonna git-r-
done. And we're going to get her done one way or the other.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time,
actually.
We're going to have time during the amendment process to debate the
three amendments that have been made in order under the rule. I wish
more had been made in order--that's why I voted against the rule--but
that decision was the Rules Committee.
The three that will be allowed, of course one has to do with
environmental gutting--I mean, streamlining; the other has to do with
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; and then the third has to do with
legislation introduced by my colleague from West Virginia (Mr.
McKinley) dealing with coal waste ash, the latter of which there is
support from my side of the aisle for and, indeed, from myself.
The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is a good amendment. I'm glad the
Rules Committee made that in order, and I find myself in position to
support that as well as the coal ash amendment. At the proper time,
I'll speak further on it.
I would like to say that the gentleman from Florida, my chairman, has
referred to the inability of our side of the aisle to pass legislation
when we were in control of this body. We may have been in control of
the other body as well--although, we were not, because the minority
over there, as the gentleman knows, has more power than the majority in
the other body; and perhaps we did not have the full support of the
administration as we would have liked under then-Chairman Jim
Oberstar's leadership, and that's unfortunate as well. I don't think
any of us would deny that on this side of the aisle.
The fact of the matter is, today, with the other body being even more
divided than it was in previous leadership regimes, they have passed a
bipartisan bill. Half of the Republican Members of the other body
supported their bipartisan transportation bill. Both the chairlady and
the ranking member of the relevant committee joined together, put their
names on a piece of legislation, put some reforms in it that are good
reforms, provided a 2-year bill, paid for, and I believe is a bill that
we should have been considering today and that I had made the request
to the Rules Committee yesterday to consider, but they did not grant my
wishes, so we are where we are today.
We have an additional 90-day extension that we will be asked to vote
on later today. That's a good thing, I guess, if we get to a
conference. And this is the final point that I want to make is that
conference must be held sooner rather than later. It must be held as
soon as possible. We're ready to go to conference later today if the
conferees were to be announced. We already have the Senate bill. So
from our side of the aisle, we're ready to go to conference today,
right now.
I would urge the majority in this body to call that conference as
soon as possible. Our workers cannot wait any longer. Our small
businesses cannot wait any longer. Our road contractors cannot wait any
longer.
This is the time of the year when road contracts are let, as I'm sure
my distinguished chairman and every Member of this body knows full
well. This is the time of the year, the springtime of the year when
those decisions have to be made, when our small businesses, when our
road contractors need to let their employees and prospective employees
know--today they need to let them know whether or not they're going to
have a job, not 90 days from now, not 90 plus 90 days from now, but
today.
So that's why I would urge that this conference committee meet as
quickly as possible. I call upon the leadership of this body to call a
conference committee. Our workers are ready. Our contractors are ready.
Contracts are ready to be let.

{time} 1450

We need those American jobs now, and I would hope that Chairman Mica
would join me in a bipartisan plea to assign conferees as expeditiously
as possible and to call a conference even quicker, if that's possible.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake), one of the leaders for responsible government.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
I rise in support of the provision in this legislation to get the
construction of the Keystone pipeline under way.
For months, Members on both sides of the aisle have worked to impress
upon the administration the urgent need for the Keystone XL pipeline

[[Page H1939]]

project to proceed. Justification for Keystone as a safe and critical
boon to private sector job creation and American energy security has
not changed.
This project, as we all know, carries with it thousands of jobs. It
will still increase the Nation's capacity to transport crude oil by
830,000 barrels a day; and the State Department is still on record
saying that the Keystone ``poses little environmental risk'' and will
lead to ``no significant impacts to most resources.''
But, unfortunately, the administration's reluctance to proceed with
Keystone has left some that question things on Keystone and some debate
to begin. The unemployment rate is still above 8 percent. The U.S.
still relies on the same sources of foreign energy, and a lot of
Americans are asking why, why in the world can't we get this approved.
I would urge adoption of this provision.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MICA. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
I have concerns, overall, on the transportation provisions, but this
provision is very good, the Keystone provision, and it should remain
in.
Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), one of the leaders of the
Energy and Commerce Committee and helper on this legislation.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida
for yielding and for bringing this legislation forward and,
specifically, want to talk about title III of this bill, and that deals
with the RESTORE Act.
Of course, this Friday will mark the 2-year anniversary of the
Deepwater Horizon disaster. People all across the country saw for weeks
and weeks oil coming into the Gulf of Mexico, destroying ecosystems,
destroying economic industries. And yet, still to this day, there is no
mechanism in place to dictate what should happen to those fines that BP
and the other responsible parties will have to pay under the Clean
Water Act.
In this component, the RESTORE Act actually sets that policy out. And
it was the result of a compilation of work by Republicans and Democrats
from all five Gulf Coast States who came together and recognized that
the most responsible thing to do would be to dedicate that money, 80
percent of those fines, to the Gulf Coast States so that we actually
have revenue to go and restore the damage that's been done.
I think most people recognize the right thing to do is to dedicate
that money, not to send it up to Washington to be spent on things
unrelated, but to actually allow us to restore the damage that was done
in the Gulf of Mexico from that tragedy, and that's what this bill
does.
The mechanism is in place, and as we go to a conference committee, I
feel very confident we can get to a point where we have the full
RESTORE Act in the final product so that there is no question that
there is a commitment from this Congress that the Gulf Coast States
ought to have the ability to restore the damage that was done during
that tragedy.
Of course, another component of this bill is the Keystone pipeline.
And I think as we look at the dilemma so many families are facing with
escalating gas prices, the fact that you've got gas prices in some
places already over $4 a gallon, experts predicting $5 a gallon
gasoline, and here we have a friend in Canada saying that they want to
send a million barrels a day of oil to America, which is a million
barrels a day we don't have to get from these Middle Eastern countries
who don't like us, sending billions of dollars to people, in essence,
funding the enemy in some of these terrorist battles across the Middle
East.
We've got the ability to create 20,000 jobs and secure our energy
security. I look forward to passage of this legislation.
Mr. RAHALL. Is the gentleman from Florida ready to close?
Mr. MICA. I'm ready to close.
Mr. RAHALL. I know how much time I have left, I think, but just tell
me, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIR. The gentleman has 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. RAHALL. Let me, again, repeat what I said a moment ago. I'm sure
the chairman heard me. And I'm asking, once again, that we go to
conference as quickly as possible. I gave the reasons in my concluding
speech why that is necessary for the sake of jobs for Americans.
I would hope that, in one last-ditch effort, one last-ditch effort to
plead for bipartisanship in this body, as the other body has already
demonstrated and proved, that perhaps the chairman would join me, his
ranking member, in a letter to the Speaker urging that we go to
conference as quickly as possible.
The legislative process has been explained to me, and when you cut
through it all, we could go to conference as early as tonight on this
legislation. So I would ask the chairman, once again, if he would join
me in that last bipartisan plea I make for such a joint pleading with
the Speaker to go to conference.
I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. 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.
Mr. MICA. And I would tell the gentleman--am I on the gentleman's
time, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIR. Yes, you're on the gentleman's time.
Mr. MICA. Okay. Then I would tell the gentleman that I plan to
respond in not taking his time, but in taking my time to the request
from the distinguished ranking member from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall),
and I will have an answer in response to his specific question dealing
with whether or not I would sign the letter asking for an expeditious
approval and consideration of appointment of conferees and going to
conference in an expedited manner.
Mr. DeFAZIO. 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

[[Page H1940]]

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.

{time} 1500

Mr. RAHALL. As we are all anxiously awaiting the chairman to respond
with his time, I yield back the balance of my time so that we all can
wait with bated breath to hear the distinguished chairman's response to
our invitation.
Mr. MICA. Might I inquire as to what time is remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman has 5\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. MICA. In answering with bated breath, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
First of all, let me say on a serious basis that I've tried to have
the best working relationship possible with Mr. Rahall, the Democrat
leader of the Transportation Committee. He and I were respectively
chosen to lead the committee, and I've tried to do my best in the last
year plus several months to work with him in meeting our
responsibilities.
We have done some important things. We passed a 5-year stalled FAA
bill, and we did it without tax increases, without earmarks, and with a
good plan for the future that will put people to work in an area, the
aviation industry, that accounts for 10 percent of our economic
activity in the country.
Let me say in regard to the former chair of, I believe, the Highway
Subcommittee, Mr. DeFazio, that he was the ranking member on 9/11 when
the good Lord put us both with the responsibility of trying to get the
Nation's aviation system going after the horrendous attack by
terrorists on our country and on the aviation system, and we did that
together.
I came to this position after 18 years, after my predecessor, Mr.
Oberstar, who I enjoyed so much working with, who was the distinguished
leader from the other side. I learned quite a bit from Mr. Oberstar and
others, from Mr. Shuster who came before me. There was a whole host of
great leaders in the committee--Mr. Mineta, my first chair. I tried to
learn from all of them and not make mistakes but to do the best thing
for the committee, not for my self-interests or my party's interests,
but in the interest of the American people, because that's what we're
sent here for is to help the American people.
We had a crisis after 9/11. We came together. We have a crisis now.
We have millions of Americans who don't have jobs, who don't have work.
I supported the bill. I think Mr. Oberstar waited 32 years to become
chairman. I was elected after 18 years by my colleagues. He had his
bill pretty much together. I didn't have a bill.
I first went to Mr. Rahall's district, who is the ranking member, and
held the first hearing on this legislation in Beckley, West Virginia,
which I'd never been to, and I wouldn't mind going back. Everybody
there was nice to me and committed then. We went across the country and
did a record number of hearings--as I said, bipartisan, bicameral with
Mrs. Boxer, who I hope to complete this legislation with and with other
leaders and workers, because here you can't do it yourself. You really
can't. You might think you can, but you can't.
So I have taken everybody's good ideas, and please don't say I wasn't
bipartisan. We took every amendment, 100 Democrat amendments. I don't
know anyone who has done that. We sat there until 3 o'clock in the
morning--it was an 18-hour markup--and we passed 20-some of their
amendments. Shoot, this is difficult. I don't have earmarks like the
previous chairman had. The last bill had 6,300 earmarks. Yes, you can
get the bill done quickly, but even then it took them 2 years. I've
been here for--what?--14 months leading the committee, and today, we
will take this to conference.
To answer your question, not only will I sign the letter; I will
draft the letter asking to be expeditious in going to conference and in
the appointment of conferees. In addition, I'll ask our chair, Mr.
Duncan, to sign that letter--I hope you will join me, and I thank you
for offering that--so we can get the people's work done.
I look back and I see the missed opportunities, one when Mr. LaHood
came in to Mr. Oberstar and me and turned down a 6-year bill that we
had planned. I didn't like everything Mr. Oberstar proposed. In fact, I
probably would have had to have held my nose and voted for it; but I
told him, in the interest of the country and the American people, we
needed to move forward, and I was supportive of getting the bill to
conference so we could work out the details. I wasn't afforded all that
opportunity in this process, and I'm saddened a bit about that because
I have tried to work in good faith.
Now the American people are calling on us to stop the bickering, to
stop the baloney, to get back to work. The American people are hurting.
Then again, there is the pain at the pump. I've seen people, when
I've been home, taking out a few dollars at a time in trying to pay
that gas bill, and sometimes I've seen people go out and buy $5 worth
of gas. It breaks my heart that they can barely make it back and forth.
I saw a waitress who was telling me how difficult it was for her to get
to work because she couldn't afford it. But that's why they sent us
here--to get this job done, and we need to get this job done.
So I think, on behalf of the American people, we need to continue the
process. We've been down several roads, and some of those had some
bumps and some of them had some dead ends, but let's hope that this has
a path to lower energy costs and that this has a path to building this
country's infrastructure, which is so important for what the business
of this country is. The business of this country is business. It wasn't
Big Government. So we can do it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise to support H.R.
4348, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, Part II, but I
do so with a great deal of reservation. The simple fact is that we must
pass a transportation reauthorization for the benefit of the country,
as the piecemeal extensions cannot provide cities and states adequate
time to plan, and result in wasteful spending of our precious
infrastructure dollars.
The current bill was crafted in backrooms of the GOP leadership,
without the benefit of hearings or a markup. This bill does not include
one Democratic amendment, and contains numerous poison pills such as
the Keystone XL pipeline that will be non-starters with Senate
conferees. Up until the present time, the House Transportation and
Infrastructure committee has worked in a fashion that focused on shared
goals and producing the type of legislation that creates jobs, improves
safety, and keeps Americans safe on the roads they travel. As a senior
member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I can
say that this reauthorization process in the House has been a stark
departure from the traditional bipartisan process, and the quality of
the bill has suffered as such.
Nevertheless, I support final passage of H.R. 4348 because it will
enable the House to conference with the Senate on the reauthorization,
and with a reauthorization in place, we can begin to repair our
crumbling infrastructure and get thousands of American back to work.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 4348

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Table of contents.

TITLE I--SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION

Sec. 101. Short title.

Subtitle A--Federal-Aid Highways

Sec. 111. Extension of Federal-aid highway programs.

Subtitle B--Extension of Highway Safety Programs

Sec. 121. Extension of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
highway safety programs.
Sec. 122. Extension of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
programs.
Sec. 123. Additional programs.

Subtitle C--Public Transportation Programs

Sec. 131. Allocation of funds for planning programs.

[[Page H1941]]

Sec. 132. Special rule for urbanized area formula grants.
Sec. 133. Allocating amounts for capital investment grants.
Sec. 134. Apportionment of formula grants for other than urbanized
areas.
Sec. 135. Apportionment based on fixed guideway factors.
Sec. 136. Authorizations for public transportation.
Sec. 137. Amendments to SAFETEA LU.

Subtitle D--Highway Trust Fund Extension

Sec. 141. Extension of highway-related taxes.
Sec. 142. Extension of trust fund expenditure authority.

TITLE II--KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Restriction.
Sec. 203. Permit.
Sec. 204. Relation to other law.

TITLE III--RESTORE ACT

Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund.

TITLE I--SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Surface Transportation
Extension Act of 2012, Part II''.

Subtitle A--Federal-Aid Highways

SEC. 111. EXTENSION OF FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAMS.

(a) In General.--Section 111 of the Surface Transportation
Extension Act of 2011, Part II (Public Law 112 30; 125 Stat.
343) is amended--
(1) by striking ``the period beginning on October 1, 2011,
and ending on June 30, 2012,'' each place it appears and
inserting ``fiscal year 2012'';
(2) by striking ``\3/4\ of'' each place it appears; and
(3) in subsection (a) by striking ``June 30, 2012'' and
inserting ``September 30, 2012''.
(b) Use of Funds.--Section 111(c) of the Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2011, Part II (125 Stat. 343)
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``, except that during
such period'' and all that follows before the period at the
end; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)(ii) by striking ``$479,250,000''
and inserting ``$639,000,000''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (4).
(c) Extension of Authorizations Under Title V of SAFETEA
LU.--Section 111(e)(2) of the Surface Transportation
Extension Act of 2011, Part II (125 Stat. 343) is amended by
striking ``the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012.'' and inserting ``fiscal year
2012.''.
(d) Administrative Expenses.--Section 112(a) of the Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2011, Part II (125 Stat. 346)
is amended by striking ``$294,641,438 for the period
beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.''
and inserting ``$392,855,250 for fiscal year 2012.''.

Subtitle B--Extension of Highway Safety Programs

SEC. 121. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS.

(a) Chapter 4 Highway Safety Programs.--Section 2001(a)(1)
of SAFETEA LU (119 Stat. 1519) is amended by striking
``$235,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011''
and all that follows through the period at the end and
inserting ``and $235,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009
through 2012.''.
(b) Highway Safety Research and Development.--Section
2001(a)(2) of SAFETEA LU (119 Stat. 1519) is amended by
striking ``and $81,183,000 for the period beginning on
October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.'' and inserting
``and $105,500,000 for fiscal year 2012.''.
(c) Occupant Protection Incentive Grants.--Section
2001(a)(3) of SAFETEA LU (119 Stat. 1519) is amended by
striking ``, $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006
through 2011'' and all that follows through the period at the
end and inserting ``and $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2006 through 2012.''.
(d) Safety Belt Performance Grants.--Section 2001(a)(4) of
SAFETEA LU (119 Stat. 1519) is amended by striking ``and
$36,375,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012.'' and inserting ``and $48,500,000
for fiscal year 2012.''.
(e) State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements.--
Section 2001(a)(5) of SAFETEA LU (119 Stat. 1519) is amended
by striking ``for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2011''
and all that follows through the period at the end and
inserting ``for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2012.''.
(f) Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive
Grant Program.--Section 2001(a)(6) of SAFETEA LU (119 Stat.
1519) is amended by striking ``$139,000,000 for each of
fiscal years fiscal years 2009 through 2011'' and all that
follows through the period at the end and inserting ``and
$139,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2012.''.
(g) National Driver Register.--Section 2001(a)(7) of
SAFETEA LU (119 Stat. 1520) is amended by striking ``and
$3,087,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012.'' and inserting ``and $4,000,000 for
fiscal year 2012.''.
(h) High Visibility Enforcement Program.--Section
2001(a)(8) of SAFETEA LU (119 Stat. 1520) is amended by
striking ``for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2011'' and
all that follows through the period at the end and inserting
``for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2012.''.
(i) Motorcyclist Safety.--Section 2001(a)(9) of SAFETEA LU
(119 Stat. 1520) is amended by striking ``$7,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2011'' and all that follows
through the period at the end and inserting ``and $7,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2012.''.
(j) Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Safety Incentive
Grants.--Section 2001(a)(10) of SAFETEA LU (119 Stat. 1520)
is amended by striking ``$7,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2009 through 2011'' and all that follows through the period
at the end and inserting ``and $7,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2009 through 2012.''.
(k) Administrative Expenses.--Section 2001(a)(11) of
SAFETEA LU (119 Stat. 1520) is amended by striking
``$25,328,000 for fiscal year 2011'' and all that follows
through the period at the end and inserting ``and $25,328,000
for each of fiscal years 2011 and 2012.''.

SEC. 122. EXTENSION OF FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS.

(a) Motor Carrier Safety Grants.--Section 31104(a)(8) of
title 49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(8) $212,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.''.
(b) Administrative Expenses.--
(1) In general.--Section 31104(i)(1)(H) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(H) $244,144,000 for fiscal year 2012.''.
(2) Technical correction.--Section 31104(i)(1)(F) of title
49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(F) $239,828,000 for fiscal year 2010;''.
(c) Grant Programs.--Section 4101(c) of SAFETEA LU (119
Stat. 1715) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``and $22,500,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012.'' and inserting ``and $30,000,000 for fiscal year
2012.'';
(2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``2011 and $24,000,000 for
the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June
30, 2012.'' and inserting ``2012.'';
(3) in paragraph (3) by striking ``2011 and $3,750,000 for
the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June
30, 2012.'' and inserting ``2012.'';
(4) in paragraph (4) by striking ``2011 and $18,750,000 for
the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June
30, 2012.'' and inserting ``2012.''; and
(5) in paragraph (5) by striking ``2011 and $2,250,000 for
the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June
30, 2012.'' and inserting ``2012.''.
(d) High-Priority Activities.--Section 31104(k)(2) of title
49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``2011 and
$11,250,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``2012''.
(e) New Entrant Audits.--Section 31144(g)(5)(B) of title
49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``and up to
$21,750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,''.
(f) Outreach and Education.--Section 4127(e) of SAFETEA LU
(119 Stat. 1741) is amended by striking ``and 2011 (and
$750,000 to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
and $2,250,000 to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, for the period beginning on October 1, 2011,
and ending on June 30, 2012)'' and inserting ``2011, and
2012''.
(g) Grant Program for Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators.--
Section 4134(c) of SAFETEA LU (119 Stat. 1744) is amended by
striking ``2011 and $750,000 for the period beginning on
October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting
``2012''.
(h) Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee.--Section
4144(d) of SAFETEA LU (119 Stat. 1748) is amended by striking
``June 30, 2012'' and inserting ``September 30, 2012''.
(i) Working Group for Development of Practices and
Procedures To Enhance Federal-State Relations.--Section
4213(d) of SAFETEA LU (49 U.S.C. 14710 note; 119 Stat. 1759)
is amended by striking ``June 30, 2012'' and inserting
``September 30, 2012''.

SEC. 123. ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS.

(a) Hazardous Materials Research Projects.--Section 7131(c)
of SAFETEA LU (119 Stat. 1910) is amended by striking ``and
$870,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``and $1,160,000 for
fiscal year 2012''.
(b) Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act.--Section 4
of the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C.
777c) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``2011 and for the period
beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,''
and inserting ``2012,''; and
(2) in the first sentence of subsection (b)(1)(A) by
striking ``2011 and for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``2012,''.

Subtitle C--Public Transportation Programs

SEC. 131. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR PLANNING PROGRAMS.

Section 5305(g) of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``2011 and for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on June 30, 2012'' and inserting ``2012''.

SEC. 132. SPECIAL RULE FOR URBANIZED AREA FORMULA GRANTS.

Section 5307(b)(2) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking the paragraph heading and inserting
``Special rule for fiscal years 2005 through 2012.--'';

[[Page H1942]]

(2) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``2011 and the period
beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,''
and inserting ``2012,''; and
(3) in subparagraph (E)--
(A) by striking the subparagraph heading and inserting
``Maximum amounts in fiscal years 2008 through 2012.--''; and
(B) in the matter preceding clause (i) by striking ``2011
and during the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012'' and inserting ``2012''.

SEC. 133. ALLOCATING AMOUNTS FOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS.

Section 5309(m) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking the paragraph heading and inserting
``Fiscal years 2006 through 2012.--'';
(B) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking
``2011 and the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``2012''; and
(C) in subparagraph (A)(i) by striking ``2011 and
$150,000,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``2012'';
(2) in paragraph (6)--
(A) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``2011 and $11,250,000
shall be available for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``2012'';
and
(B) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``though 2011 and
$3,750,000 shall be available for the period beginning on
October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting
``through 2012''; and
(3) in paragraph (7)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in the matter preceding clause (i)--

(I) in the first sentence by striking ``2011 and $7,500,000
shall be available for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``2012'';
and
(II) in the second sentence by inserting ``each fiscal
year'' before the colon;

(ii) in clause (i) by striking ``for each fiscal year and
$1,875,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'';
(iii) in clause (ii) by striking ``for each fiscal year and
$1,875,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'';
(iv) in clause (iii) by striking ``for each fiscal year and
$750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'';
(v) in clause (iv) by striking ``for each fiscal year and
$750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'';
(vi) in clause (v) by striking ``for each fiscal year and
$750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'';
(vii) in clause (vi) by striking ``for each fiscal year and
$750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'';
(viii) in clause (vii) by striking ``for each fiscal year
and $487,500 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,''; and
(ix) in clause (viii) by striking ``for each fiscal year
and $262,500 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'';
(B) in subparagraph (B) by striking clause (vii) and
inserting the following:
``(vii) $13,500,000 for fiscal year 2012.'';
(C) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``and during the period
beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'';
(D) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``and not less than
$26,250,000 shall be available for the period beginning on
October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,''; and
(E) in subparagraph (E) by striking ``and $2,250,000 shall
be available for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,''.

SEC. 134. APPORTIONMENT OF FORMULA GRANTS FOR OTHER THAN
URBANIZED AREAS.

Section 5311(c)(1)(G) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(G) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.''.

SEC. 135. APPORTIONMENT BASED ON FIXED GUIDEWAY FACTORS.

Section 5337 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by
striking subsection (g).

SEC. 136. AUTHORIZATIONS FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

(a) Formula and Bus Grants.--Section 5338(b) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking subparagraph (G) and
inserting the following:
``(G) $8,360,565,000 for fiscal year 2012.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``$113,500,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $85,125,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``and $113,500,000 for each of fiscal
years 2009 through 2012'';
(B) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``$4,160,365,000 for
each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $3,120,273,750
for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on
June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``and $4,160,365,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2012'';
(C) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``$51,500,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $38,625,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``and $51,500,000 for each of fiscal
years 2009 through 2012'';
(D) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``$1,666,500,000 for
each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $1,249,875,000
for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on
June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``and $1,666,500,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2012'';
(E) in subparagraph (E) by striking ``$984,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $738,000,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``and $984,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2009 through 2012'';
(F) in subparagraph (F) by striking ``$133,500,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $100,125,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``and $133,500,000 for each of fiscal
years 2009 through 2012'';
(G) in subparagraph (G) by striking ``$465,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $348,750,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``and $465,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2009 through 2012'';
(H) in subparagraph (H) by striking ``$164,500,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $123,375,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``and $164,500,000 for each of fiscal
years 2009 through 2012'';
(I) in subparagraph (I) by striking ``$92,500,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $69,375,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``and $92,500,000 for each of fiscal
years 2009 through 2012'';
(J) in subparagraph (J) by striking ``$26,900,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $20,175,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``and $26,900,000 for each of fiscal
years 2009 through 2012'';
(K) in subparagraph (K) by striking ``for each of fiscal
years 2006 through 2011 and $2,625,000 for the period
beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,''
and inserting ``for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2012'';
(L) in subparagraph (L) by striking ``for each of fiscal
years 2006 through 2011 and $18,750,000 for the period
beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,''
and inserting ``for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2012'';
(M) in subparagraph (M) by striking ``$465,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $348,750,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``and $465,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2009 through 2012''; and
(N) in subparagraph (N) by striking ``$8,800,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $6,600,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``and $8,800,000 for each of fiscal
years 2009 through 2012''.
(b) Capital Investment Grants.--Section 5338(c)(7) of title
49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(7) $1,955,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.''.
(c) Research and University Research Centers.--Section
5338(d) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by striking ``through 2011, and $33,000,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``through 2011, and $44,000,000 for
fiscal year 2012,''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) Additional authorizations.--
``(A) Research.--Of amounts authorized to be appropriated
under paragraph (1) for fiscal year 2012, the Secretary shall
allocate for each of the activities and projects described in
subparagraphs (A) through (F) of paragraph (1) an amount
equal to 63 percent of the amount allocated for fiscal year
2009 under each such subparagraph.
``(B) University centers program.--
``(i) Fiscal year 2012.--Of the amounts allocated under
subparagraph (A)(i) for the university centers program under
section 5506 for fiscal year 2012, the Secretary shall
allocate for each program described in clauses (i) through
(iii) and (v) through (viii) of paragraph (2)(A) an amount
equal to 63 percent of the amount allocated for fiscal year
2009 under each such clause.
``(ii) Funding.--If the Secretary determines that a project
or activity described in paragraph (2) received sufficient
funds in fiscal year 2011, or a previous fiscal year, to
carry out the purpose for which the project or activity was
authorized, the Secretary may not allocate any amounts under
clause (i) for the project or activity for fiscal year 2012
or any subsequent fiscal year.''.
(d) Administration.--Section 5338(e)(7) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(7) $98,713,000 for fiscal year 2012.''.

SEC. 137. AMENDMENTS TO SAFETEA LU.

(a) Contracted Paratransit Pilot.--Section 3009(i)(1) of
SAFETEA LU (119 Stat. 1572) is amended by striking ``2011 and
the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June
30, 2012,'' and inserting ``2012,''.
(b) Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program.--Section 3011
of SAFETEA LU (49 U.S.C. 5309 note; 119 Stat. 1588) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(5) by striking ``2011 and the period
beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012''
and inserting ``2012''; and
(2) in the second sentence of subsection (d) by striking
``2011 and the period beginning on

[[Page H1943]]

October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting
``2012''.
(c) Elderly Individuals and Individuals With Disabilities
Pilot Program.--Section 3012(b)(8) of SAFETEA LU (49 U.S.C.
5310 note; 119 Stat. 1593) is amended by striking ``June 30,
2012'' and inserting ``September 30, 2012''.
(d) Obligation Ceiling.--Section 3040(8) of SAFETEA LU (119
Stat. 1639) is amended to read as follows:
``(8) $10,458,278,000 for fiscal year 2012, of which not
more than $8,360,565,000 shall be from the Mass Transit
Account.''.
(e) Project Authorizations for New Fixed Guideway Capital
Projects.--Section 3043 of SAFETEA LU (119 Stat. 1640) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (b), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``2011 and the period beginning on October
1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting
``2012''; and
(2) in subsection (c), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``2011 and the period beginning on October
1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting
``2012''.
(f) Allocations for National Research and Technology
Programs.--Section 3046 of SAFETEA LU (49 U.S.C. 5338 note;
119 Stat. 1706) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b) by striking ``fiscal year or period''
and inserting ``fiscal year''; and
(2) by striking subsection (c)(2) and inserting the
following:
``(2) for fiscal year 2012, in amounts equal to 63 percent
of the amounts allocated for fiscal year 2009 under each of
paragraphs (2), (3), (5), and (8) through (25) of subsection
(a).''.

Subtitle D--Highway Trust Fund Extension

SEC. 141. EXTENSION OF HIGHWAY-RELATED TAXES.

(a) In General.--
(1) Each of the following provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``June 30, 2012''
and inserting ``September 30, 2012'':
(A) Section 4041(a)(1)(C)(iii)(I).
(B) Section 4041(m)(1)(B).
(C) Section 4081(d)(1).
(2) Each of the following provisions of such Code is
amended by striking ``July 1, 2012'' and inserting ``October
1, 2012'':
(A) Section 4041(m)(1)(A).
(B) Section 4051(c).
(C) Section 4071(d).
(D) Section 4081(d)(3).
(b) Floor Stocks Refunds.--Section 6412(a)(1) of such Code
is amended--
(1) by striking ``July 1, 2012'' each place it appears and
inserting ``October 1, 2012'';
(2) by striking ``December 31, 2012'' each place it appears
and inserting ``March 31, 2013''; and
(3) by striking ``October 1, 2012'' and inserting ``January
1, 2013''.
(c) Extension of Certain Exemptions.--Sections 4221(a) and
4483(i) of such Code are each amended by striking ``July 1,
2012'' and inserting ``October 1, 2012''.
(d) Extension of Transfers of Certain Taxes.--
(1) In general.--Section 9503 of such Code is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)--
(i) by striking ``July 1, 2012'' each place it appears in
paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting ``October 1, 2012'';
(ii) by striking ``July 1, 2012'' in the heading of
paragraph (2) and inserting ``October 1, 2012'';
(iii) by striking ``June 30, 2012'' in paragraph (2) and
inserting ``September 30, 2012''; and
(iv) by striking ``April 1, 2013'' in paragraph (2) and
inserting ``July 1, 2013''; and
(B) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``April 1, 2013'' and
inserting ``July 1, 2013''.
(2) Motorboat and small-engine fuel tax transfers.--
(A) In general.--Paragraphs (3)(A)(i) and (4)(A) of section
9503(c) of such Code are each amended by striking ``July 1,
2012'' and inserting ``October 1, 2012''.
(B) Conforming amendments to land and water conservation
fund.--Section 201(b) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l 11(b)) is amended--
(i) by striking ``July 1, 2013'' each place it appears and
inserting ``October 1, 2013''; and
(ii) by striking ``July 1, 2012'' and inserting ``October
1, 2012''.
(e) Technical Correction.--Paragraph (4) of section 4482(c)
of such Code is amended to read as follows:
``(4) Taxable period.--The term `taxable period' means any
year beginning before July 1, 2013, and the period which
begins on July 1, 2013, and ends at the close of September
30, 2013.''.
(f) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall take effect on July 1,
2012.
(2) Technical correction.--The amendment made by subsection
(e) shall take effect as if included in section 402 of the
Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012.

SEC. 142. EXTENSION OF TRUST FUND EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.

(a) Highway Trust Fund.--Section 9503 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``July 1, 2012'' in subsections (b)(6)(B),
(c)(1), and (e)(3) and inserting ``October 1, 2012''; and
(2) by striking ``Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2012'' in subsections (c)(1) and (e)(3) and inserting
``Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, Part II''.
(b) Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund.--Section
9504 of such Code is amended--
(1) by striking ``Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2012'' each place it appears in subsection (b)(2) and
inserting ``Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012,
Part II''; and
(2) by striking ``July 1, 2012'' in subsection (d)(2) and
inserting ``October 1, 2012''.
(c) Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.--Paragraph
(2) of section 9508(e) of such Code is amended by striking
``July 1, 2012'' and inserting ``October 1, 2012''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on July 1, 2012.

TITLE II--KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``North American Energy
Access Act''.

SEC. 202. RESTRICTION.

(a) In General.--No person may construct, operate, or
maintain the oil pipeline and related facilities described in
subsection (b) except in accordance with a permit issued
under this title.
(b) Pipeline.--The pipeline and related facilities referred
to in subsection (a) are those described in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Pipeline
Project issued by the Department of State on August 26, 2011,
including any modified version of that pipeline and related
facilities.

SEC. 203. PERMIT.

(a) Issuance.--
(1) By ferc.--The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
shall, not later than 30 days after receipt of an application
therefor, issue a permit without additional conditions for
the construction, operation, and maintenance of the oil
pipeline and related facilities described in section 202(b),
to be implemented in accordance with the terms of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement described in section 202(b).
The Commission shall not be required to prepare a Record of
Decision under section 1505.2 of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations with respect to issuance of the permit
provided for in this section.
(2) Issuance in absence of ferc action.--If the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission has not acted on an application
for a permit described in paragraph (1) within 30 days after
receiving such application, the permit shall be deemed to
have been issued under this title upon the expiration of such
30-day period.
(b) Modification.--
(1) In general.--The applicant for or holder of a permit
described in subsection (a) may make a substantial
modification to the pipeline route or any other term of the
Final Environmental Impact Statement described in section
202(b) only with the approval of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. The Commission shall expedite
consideration of any such modification proposal.
(2) Nebraska modification.--Within 30 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission shall enter into a memorandum of understanding
with the State of Nebraska for an effective and timely review
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 of any
modification to the proposed pipeline route in Nebraska as
proposed by the applicant for the permit described in
subsection (a). Not later than 30 days after receiving
approval of such proposed modification from the Governor of
Nebraska, the Commission shall complete consideration of and
approve such modification.
(3) Issuance in absence of ferc action.--If the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission has not acted on an application
for approval of a modification described in paragraph (2)
within 30 days after receiving such application, such
modification shall be deemed to have been issued under this
title upon expiration of the 30-day period.
(4) Construction during consideration of nebraska
modification.--While any modification of the proposed
pipeline route in Nebraska is under consideration pursuant to
paragraph (2), the holder of the permit issued under
subsection (a) may commence or continue with construction of
any portion of the pipeline and related facilities described
in section 202(b) that is not within the State of Nebraska.
(c) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.--Except for
actions taken under subsection (b)(1), the actions taken
pursuant to this title shall be taken without further action
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

SEC. 204. RELATION TO OTHER LAW.

(a) General Rule.--Notwithstanding Executive Order 13337 (3
U.S.C. 301 note), Executive Order 11423 (3 U.S.C. 301 note),
section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and any other
Executive Order or provision of law, no presidential permits
shall be required for the construction, operation, and
maintenance of the pipeline and related facilities described
in section 202(b) of this Act.
(b) Applicability.--Nothing in this title shall affect the
application to the pipeline and related facilities described
in section 202(b) of--
(1) chapter 601 of title 49, United States Code; or

[[Page H1944]]

(2) the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to regulate oil pipeline rates and services.
(c) Final Environmental Impact Statement.--The final
environmental impact statement issued by the Secretary of
State on August 26, 2011, shall be considered to satisfy all
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

TITLE III--RESTORE ACT

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Resources and Ecosystems
Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies
of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012''.

SEC. 302. GULF COAST RESTORATION TRUST FUND.

(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a trust fund to be known as the ``Gulf
Coast Restoration Trust Fund'' (referred to in this section
as the ``Trust Fund''), consisting of such amounts as are
deposited in the Trust Fund under this section or any other
provision of law.
(b) Transfers.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit
in the Trust Fund an amount equal to 80 percent of all
administrative and civil penalties paid by responsible
parties after the date of enactment of this title in
connection with the explosion on, and sinking of, the mobile
offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon pursuant to a court
order, negotiated settlement, or other instrument in
accordance with section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321).
(c) Expenditures.--Amounts in the Trust Fund, including
interest earned on advances to the Trust Fund and proceeds
from investment under subsection (d), shall be available,
pursuant to a future Act of Congress enacted after the date
of enactment of this Act--
(1) for expenditure to restore the Gulf Coast region from
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill for undertaking projects and
programs in the Gulf Coast region that would restore and
protect the natural resources, ecosystems, fisheries, marine
and wildlife habitats, beaches, coastal wetlands, and economy
of the Gulf Coast region; and
(2) solely to Gulf Coast States and coastal political
subdivisions to restore the ecosystems and economy of the
Gulf Coast region.
(d) Investment.--Amounts in the Trust Fund shall be
invested in accordance with section 9702 of title 31, United
States Code, and any interest on, and proceeds from, any such
investment shall be available for expenditure in accordance
with this section.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Coastal political subdivision.--The term ``coastal
political subdivision'' means any local political
jurisdiction that is immediately below the State level of
government, including a county, parish, or borough, with a
coastline that is contiguous with any portion of the United
States Gulf of Mexico.
(2) Deepwater horizon oil spill.--The term ``Deepwater
Horizon oil spill'' means the blowout and explosion of the
mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon that occurred
on April 20, 2010, and resulting hydrocarbon releases into
the environment.
(3) Gulf coast region.--The term ``Gulf Coast region''
means--
(A) in the Gulf Coast States, the coastal zones (as that
term is defined in section 304 of the Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1453)) that border the Gulf of Mexico;
(B) any adjacent land, water, and watersheds, that are
within 25 miles of those coastal zones of the Gulf Coast
States; and
(C) all Federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico.
(4) Gulf coast state.--The term ``Gulf Coast State'' means
any of the States of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Texas.

The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those
printed in House Report 112 446. Each such amendment may be offered
only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Boustany

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
House Report 112 446.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following (and conform the
table of contents of the bill accordingly):

TITLE IV--HARBOR MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS

SEC. 401. FUNDING FOR HARBOR MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS.

(a) Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Guarantee.--
(1) In general.--The total budget resources for a fiscal
year shall be equal to the level of receipts for harbor
maintenance for that fiscal year. Such amounts shall be used
only for harbor maintenance programs.
(2) Guarantee.--No funds may be appropriated for harbor
maintenance programs unless the amount under paragraph (1)
has been provided for all such programs.
(b) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Harbor maintenance programs.--The term ``harbor
maintenance programs'' means expenditures under section
9505(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
expenditures from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund).
(2) Level of receipts for harbor maintenance.--The term
``level of receipts for harbor maintenance'' means the level
of taxes credited to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund under
section 9505(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for a
fiscal year as set forth in the President's budget baseline
projection as defined in section 257 of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99 177)
for that fiscal year submitted pursuant to section 1105 of
title 31, United States Code, reduced by the amount requested
in such President's budget for payments described in section
9505(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(3) Total budget resources.--The term ``total budget
resources'' means the total amount made available by
appropriations Acts from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
for a fiscal year for making expenditures under section
9505(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 619, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, in 1986, Congress created the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund and the harbor maintenance tax, a dedicated user
fee, to provide a steady revenue source for the Army Corps of Engineers
to carry out the dredging of our critical navigation channels to meet
their authorized specifications with regard to depth and width.
In the year 2011, the harbor maintenance tax that was collected was
$1.4 billion, but only slightly over half of that was directed to the
intended purpose: the operations and maintenance purposes. Yet less
than 35 percent of our top Nation's harbors and ports are dredged
adequately. This is hurting American competitiveness. It's hurting
American exports. It's hurting American commerce. Frankly, as the Ways
and Means Oversight Subcommittee chairman, I find this an egregious
abuse of this tax.
My amendment does this: it basically ties the harbor maintenance tax
revenue receipts to expenditures. All funds collected shall be utilized
for the purposes that they were intended, and that is for the
maintenance of our Nation's ports and harbors.
Mr. Chairman, in January 2012 alone, five ships ran aground in the
lower Mississippi River, which is our Nation's largest export artery.
This funding is critical to prevent draft restrictions, which have
negatively affected our commerce. It is critical for expanding exports,
and it is critical in its support for the American exploration and
production of American energy. Furthermore, the Congressional Budget
Office does not issue a score on this. It doesn't add one penny to the
deficit.

{time} 1510

This amendment is critical for American competitiveness. It gives the
House a strength of hand going into conference with the Senate as I
look forward to continuing to find alternative ways to enforce that
these funds are dedicated swiftly and solely for the intended purpose,
and that is for port and waterways maintenance.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, although not in opposition, I ask unanimous
consent to claim the time.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from West Virginia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. RAHALL. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. 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

[[Page H1945]]

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.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Gibbs), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment.
Mr. GIBBS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time to discuss this
important amendment.
Congress has been neglecting our Nation's dredging needs for far too
long. Ninety-five percent of the Nation's commerce goes through our
Nation's ports. Despite the fact that the harbor maintenance fund, as
was said, raises about $1.3 billion a year, Congress has only been
appropriating about $800 million of that annually. This isn't right.
I'm a firm believer that trust funds should be used for the intended
purpose--to dredge the harbors.
In response, Congressman Boustany introduced H.R. 104, the Realize
America's Maritime Promise, RAMP Act. This legislation, of which I was
proud to be the 100th cosponsor, simply ties the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund revenue to expenditures.
While this amendment is slightly modified from H.R. 104, it would
require the total budget resources for expenditures for the trust fund
for harbor maintenance programs to equal the level of receipts plus
interest credited to the trust fund for that fiscal year.
At a time where the President proposes to double our exports and we
look to grow our Nation's economy, we cannot sit back and continue to
watch our Nation's waterborne infrastructure system deteriorate.
I urge support of this amendment.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my friend Mr.
Boustany's amendment. I think it's a good step forward. Spending all
the money that's in the cash that we take in is in the best interest of
maintaining our harbors. But I think we need to take another step. I
hope I can get Mr. Boustany and others to help.
We need a solution that helps all our ports, like those on the west
coast, those in Pennsylvania, those in Massachusetts that pay the tax.
We collect $20 on every can that comes across the dock, and we don't
get any money because we don't dredge. We've got a 70-foot draft, but
we do have problems with our seawall. We have big infrastructure needs
all across, and nearly half the money that's raised never is spent in
the port where it is raised.
Now, we compete with international ports. We compete with Vancouver,
and the Canadians are putting in a port at Prince Rupert, and we need
to maintain our ports to be competitive in this very, very competitive
industry.
We have a good geographic location. We're close to Asia, but they're
going other places because they've got better ports. That's our issue,
and we would like to have some money later on.
Thank you very much. I support the amendment.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend from
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from southwest Louisiana
for bringing this amendment forward.
As a proud cosponsor of the RAMP Act, I support this legislation
because what we're trying to say here is that you've got people that
have been paying into this fund. This Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund has
been there for years, and people have been paying into it, and the
intention all along was that money would be used to dredge our
waterways and to upgrade our locks and to keep our infrastructure along
our waterways up to date so that we can continue moving commerce, not
only throughout this country, but to be able to export and to be able
to get commerce through to other countries. The Panama Canal is getting
ready to come on line in 2013, and even deeper draft vessels are going
to be coming through. That means we've got to be able to meet that
demand, otherwise we're going to lose that business to foreign nations.

And yet here you have the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, and that
money is not even being used for its intended purpose. We've got to
ensure that the fund cannot be raided for other government spending.
That's what this amendment does. It's something that will help us
create jobs and increase the competitiveness of our workers, and it
will keep that promise that has been made to those people who have been
paying billions of dollars into this fund, and yet that fund hasn't
been used properly.
I support the amendment and urge its passage.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment as the
lead cosponsor with Mr. Boustany of the RAMP Act, H.R. 104, that had
approximately over 150 cosponsors on both sides of the aisle, people
from all corners of the country. This really should be a measure that
we should move forward on and fully fund, as well as with the language
that, again, Mr. Boustany crafted to offer here today.
There, frankly, are other reasons why we called that bill the Restore
America's Maritime Promise Act, which is that again we're a great
maritime Nation. In fact, our national defense requires having a strong
Navy that can navigate all along the coast. And where I'm from, up in
the State of Connecticut, the Groton sub base needs to be dredged out
year in and year out. But just like everybody else, it depends on the
kindness of the Army Corps of Engineers. This is really a priority that
obviously, as others have said, affects our economy, our exports, and
also our national defense, and we should support this measure.
Again, I applaud the gentleman for bringing it forward.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, this is a highway and infrastructure bill,
which means it is a jobs bill.
I commend Mr. Boustany in a bipartisan effort to add this as an
amendment to this bill.
I represent the Great Lakes. We have a number of commercial as well
as recreational harbors, but throughout the season we're bringing sand,
gravel, cement, salt for the winter into our commercial ports. And
sadly we've had a number of ports close this year in west Michigan,
where those lake carriers have not been able to get in because they
need to be dredged.
This bill allows the Great Lake harbors to be dredged with its
passage. The difference is this: on a lake carrier, it's about 600
miles per gallon per ton of cargo that you can ship on a lake carrier
rather than spending 4 cents or 5 cents on diesel fuel per mile per
truck. The difference for just my district is you can bring this in
from the UP and other places into the southern part of Lake Michigan
rather than trucking it in for hundreds of miles to the closest border.
This is a good bill and a good amendment. I'm glad to support it.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana has expired. The
gentleman from West Virginia has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. RAHALL. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Richmond) and commend him for all his hard work on this
legislation.
Mr. RICHMOND. I thank the gentleman, and I join my colleagues from
Louisiana in supporting this critical amendment.
What I would add is that we've talked about doubling our exports over
the next 4 or 5 years, and this is a critical piece to allow us to do
it. What we realize here in America is that we only make up 5 percent
of the consumers in the world, and we have to make sure that our
manufacturers, that our farmers, and that our citizens can get their
goods to the other 95 percent so that we can continue to build a robust
economy. This allows us to reduce the cost of our goods around the
world because we can now ship more goods to market. It's a step in the
right direction.
If you look at the fact that only 2 out of our 10 largest seaports
are dredged to their authorized depth, it continues

[[Page H1946]]

to move us in the right direction so that we can now focus on
adequately getting to the goal of a depth of 55 feet, which other
progressive countries are getting to.
We have to stay competitive, we have to continue to invest in this
country, and this gives us the best return on our investment. I commend
him for bringing the amendment. I support it. I would urge my
colleagues to vote for it.

{time} 1520

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, has their time expired?
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana has expired.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to give the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) a minute to speak on this.
The CHAIR. The chair understands the unanimous consent request to
provide equal time on both sides.
Without objection, the gentleman from Louisiana and the gentleman
from West Virginia each will control 1 additional minute.
There was no objection.
Mr. BOUSTANY. I would ask the gentleman if he would close for us.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I've got a radical idea, a radical idea for the people of America.
Let's use Harbor Maintenance Trust Funds for harbor maintenance. For 25
years, we've been robbing Peter to pay Paul, but in reality that $7
billion that we have taken away from that has really been robbing
places like Manistee, Michigan, where this weekend in my district a
ship ran aground and had to get towed off and the damage that happened
to it.
We have 11 harbors in the Second District, hundreds in the Great
Lakes and countless in the Nation on both of the coasts and the Gulf of
Mexico. Enough money has been collected every year to pay for all of
this maintenance that has to happen, but unfortunately Congress has
been skimming it to help pay for other programs.
I appreciate my friend from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), his leadership
with the RAMP Act, and Chairman Upton from Michigan in leading this in
the Great Lakes. We know this is the right thing to do for America and
for our transportation needs, our infrastructure needs. Our Great Lakes
need it. The coasts need it, our harbors need it, our economy needs
this to happen.
I strongly support this amendment today.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute of my final 2 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Ways
and Means committee, Mr. Richard Neal.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, everybody has heard of Gloucester and Boston,
and certainly connected it to the Mayflower. The most famous ports in
America perhaps are located in Massachusetts, so I want to be
supportive of Mr. Boustany's amendment today.
Today, Massachusetts seaports continue to play an important role. The
Port of Boston's overall activity supports 34,000 jobs. It contributes
more than $2 billion to the local, regional, and national economies.
America's ports provide a vital gateway to international trade by
facilitating the transport of cargo around the world; yet many ports
around the country, including those in Massachusetts, are in need of
maintenance.
In fact, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates that the
dimensions at the Nation's busiest 59 ports are available less than 35
percent of the time. Even though users of our Nation's waterways are
paying significant amounts of money into the trust fund to maintain our
ports, these dollars are not being spent on the ports, and the trust
fund has a surplus of $6.4 billion.
Mr. Boustany's amendment addresses this situation. It makes a good
deal of sense. We have held a hearing at the Ways and Means Select
Revenue Subcommittee, and there was bipartisan support for his
legislation.
I urge support for the Boustany amendment.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
As a Representative of the great seafaring State of West Virginia, I
rise in support of the gentleman's legislation as well.
Really, ports are important to my State. We export a great deal of
coal out of my district to the Port of Norfolk. The northern part of
West Virginia's coal goes to the Port of Baltimore, so harbors and
ports are very important to West Virginia and for the movement of our
coal from the State to its world customers.
I want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), as
well, for the tremendous work he has done on this legislation. For far
too long, we have been collecting far more resources in the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund than we have transferred to the Corps of
Engineers for their O&M activities, to the point where in the current
fiscal year, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is expected to have an
unexpended balance of over $8 billion by the end of the year.
I support the gentleman's efforts to use these funds for maintenance
dredging rather than to cover the general expenditures of the U.S.
Treasury. However, in my view, this amendment does not go far enough
because it strips out any enforcement mechanism should this language be
ignored.
In addition, the language also ignores concerns expressed by our
committee colleague, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment, Mr. Bishop of New York, on ensuring an
equitable distribution of trust fund dollars between our Nation's
large, midsize, and small commercial harbors.
I do look forward to working on these critical issues as we continue
our discussion on a long-term surface transportation bill in
conference, which we call for today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Ribble

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
House Report 112 446.
Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following (and conform the
table of contents of the bill accordingly):

TITLE IV--ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING

SEC. 401. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 23, UNITED STATES CODE.

Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this
title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or a repeal of, a section or other provision,
the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or
other provision of title 23, United States Code.

SEC. 402. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

(a) Expedited Project Delivery.--Section 101(b) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Expedited project delivery.--Congress declares that
it is in the national interest to expedite the delivery of
surface transportation projects by substantially reducing the
average length of the environmental review process.
Accordingly, it is the policy of the United States that--
``(A) the Secretary shall have the lead role among Federal
agencies in carrying out the environmental review process for
surface transportation projects;
``(B) each Federal agency shall cooperate with the
Secretary to expedite the environmental review process for
surface transportation projects;
``(C) there shall be a presumption that the mode, facility
type, and corridor location for a surface transportation
project will be determined in the transportation planning
process, as established in sections 134 and 135 and sections
5303 and 5304 of title 49;
``(D) project sponsors shall not be prohibited from
carrying out pre-construction project development activities
concurrently with the environmental review process;
``(E) programmatic approaches shall be used, to the maximum
extent possible, to reduce the need for project-by-project
reviews and decisions by Federal agencies; and
``(F) the Secretary shall actively support increased
opportunities for project sponsors to assume responsibilities
of the Secretary in carrying out the environmental review
process.''.

SEC. 403. EXEMPTION IN EMERGENCIES.

If any road, highway, or bridge is in operation or under
construction when damaged by an emergency declared by the
Governor of the State and concurred in by the Secretary, or
declared by the President pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
5121), and is reconstructed in the same location with the
same capacity, dimensions, and design as before the
emergency, then that reconstruction project shall be exempt
from any further environmental reviews, approvals, licensing,
and permit requirements under--

[[Page H1947]]

(1) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
(2) sections 402 and 404 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342, 1344);
(3) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470
et seq.);
(4) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.);
(5) the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et
seq.);
(6) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661
et seq.);
(7) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), except when the reconstruction occurs in designated
critical habitat for threatened and endangered species;
(8) Executive Order 11990 (42 U.S.C. 4321 note; relating to
the protection of wetlands); and
(9) any Federal law (including regulations) requiring no
net loss of wetlands.

SEC. 404. ADVANCE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS.

(a) Real Property Interests.--Section 108 is amended--
(1) by striking ``real property'' each place it appears and
inserting ``real property interests'';
(2) by striking ``right-of-way'' each place it appears and
inserting ``real property interest''; and
(3) by striking ``rights-of-way'' each place it appears and
inserting ``real property interests''.
(b) State-funded Early Acquisition of Real Property
Interests.--Section 108(c) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Early
Acquisition of Rights-of-Way'' and inserting ``State-Funded
Early Acquisition of Real Property Interests'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs
(2) and (3), respectively;
(3) in paragraph (2), as redesignated--
(A) in the heading by striking ``General rule'' and
inserting ``Eligibility for reimbursement''; and
(B) by striking ``Subject to paragraph (2)'' and inserting
``Subject to paragraph (3)'';
(4) by inserting before paragraph (2), as redesignated, the
following:
``(1) In general.--A State may carry out, at the expense of
the State, acquisitions of interests in real property for a
project before completion of the review process required for
the project under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) without affecting subsequent
approvals required for the project by the State or any
Federal agency.''; and
(5) in paragraph (3), as redesignated--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking
``in paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``in paragraph (2)''; and
(B) in subparagraph (G) by striking ``both the Secretary
and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
have concurred'' and inserting ``the Secretary has
determined''.
(c) Federally Funded Acquisition of Real Property
Interests.--Section 108 is further amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(d) Federally Funded Early Acquisition of Real Property
Interests.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may authorize the use of
Federal funds for the acquisition of a real property interest
by a State. For purposes of this subsection, an acquisition
of a real property interest includes the acquisition of any
interest in land, including the acquisition of a contractual
right to acquire any interest in land, or any other similar
action to acquire or preserve rights-of-way for a
transportation facility.
``(2) State certification.--A State requesting Federal
funding for an acquisition of a real property interest shall
certify in writing that--
``(A) the State has authority to acquire the real property
interest under State law;
``(B) the acquisition of the real property interest is for
a transportation purpose; and
``(C) the State acknowledges that early acquisition will
not be considered by the Secretary in the environmental
assessment of a project, the decision relative to the need to
construct a project, or the selection of a project design or
location.
``(3) Environmental compliance.--Before authorizing Federal
funding for an acquisition of a real property interest, the
Secretary shall complete for the acquisition the review
process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). For purposes of the review process,
the acquisition of a real property interest shall be treated
as having independent utility and does not limit
consideration of alternatives for future transportation
improvements with respect to the real property interest.
``(4) Programming.--The acquisition of a real property
interest for which Federal funding is requested shall be
included as a project in an applicable transportation
improvement program under sections 134 and 135 and sections
5303 and 5304 of title 49. The acquisition project may be
included in the transportation improvement program on its
own, without including the future construction project for
which the real property interest is being acquired. The
acquisition project may consist of the acquisition of a
specific parcel, a portion of a transportation corridor, or
an entire transportation corridor.
``(5) Other requirements.--The acquisition of a real
property interest shall be carried out in compliance with all
requirements applicable to the acquisition of real property
interests for federally funded transportation projects.
``(e) Consideration of Long-Range Transportation Needs.--
The Secretary shall encourage States and other public
authorities, if practicable, to acquire transportation real
property interests that are sufficient to accommodate long-
range transportation needs and, if possible, to do so through
the acquisition of broad real property interests that have
the capacity for expansion over a 50- to 100-year period and
the potential to accommodate one or more transportation
modes.''.

SEC. 405. STANDARDS.

Section 109 is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(r) Undertaking Design Activities Before Completion of
Environmental Review Process.--
``(1) In general.--A State may carry out, at the expense of
the State, design activities at any level of detail for a
project before completion of the review process required for
the project under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) without affecting subsequent
approvals of the project.
``(2) Eligibility for reimbursement.--Subject to paragraph
(3), funds apportioned to a State under this title may be
used to participate in the payment of costs incurred by the
State for design activities, if the results of the activities
are subsequently incorporated (in whole or in substantial
part) into a project eligible for surface transportation
program funds.
``(3) Terms and conditions.--The Federal share payable of
the costs described in paragraph (2) shall be eligible for
reimbursement out of funds apportioned to a State under this
title when the design activities are incorporated (in whole
or in substantial part) into a project eligible for surface
transportation program funds, if the State demonstrates to
the Secretary and the Secretary finds that--
``(A) before the time that the cost incurred by a State is
approved for Federal participation, environmental compliance
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) has been completed for the project for
which the design activities were conducted by the State; and
``(B) the design activities conducted pursuant to this
subsection did not preclude the consideration of alternatives
to the project.''.

SEC. 406. LETTING OF CONTRACTS.

(a) Bidding Requirements.--Section 112(b)(1) is amended to
read as follows:
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Competitive bidding requirement.--Subject to
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), construction of each project,
subject to the provisions of subsection (a), shall be
performed by contract awarded by competitive bidding, unless
the State transportation department demonstrates, to the
satisfaction of the Secretary, that some other method is more
cost effective or that an emergency exists.
``(B) Basis of award.--
``(i) In general.--Contracts for the construction of each
project shall be awarded only on the basis of the lowest
responsive bid submitted by a bidder meeting established
criteria of responsibility.
``(ii) Prohibition.--No requirement or obligation shall be
imposed as a condition precedent to the award of a contract
to such bidder for a project, or to the Secretary's
concurrence in the award of a contract to such bidder, unless
such requirement or obligation is otherwise lawful and is
specifically set forth in the advertised specifications.''.
(b) Design-build Contracting.--Section 112(b)(3) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``subparagraph (C)''
and inserting ``subparagraph (B)'';
(2) by striking subparagraph (B);
(3) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (E) as
subparagraphs (B) through (D), respectively; and
(4) in subparagraph (C), as redesignated--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i) by striking ``of the
SAFETEA-LU'' and inserting ``of the Surface Transportation
Extension Act of 2012, Part II'';
(B) in clause (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(C) in clause (iii)--
(i) by striking ``final design or''; and
(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(iv) permit the State transportation department, the
local transportation agency, and the design-build contractor
to proceed, at the expense of one or more of those entities,
with design activities at any level of detail for a project
before completion of the review process required for the
project under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) without affecting subsequent
approvals required for the project. Design activities carried
out under this clause shall be eligible for Federal
reimbursement as a project expense in accordance with the
requirements under section 109(r).''.
(c) Efficiencies in Contracting.--Section 112(b) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Method of contracting.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Two-phase contract.--A contracting agency may award a
two-phase contract for preconstruction and construction
services.
``(ii) Pre-construction services phase.--In the pre-
construction services phase, the contractor shall provide the
contracting

[[Page H1948]]

agency with advice for scheduling, work sequencing, cost
engineering, constructability, cost estimating, and risk
identification.
``(iii) Agreement.--Prior to the start of the construction
services phase, the contracting agency and the contractor may
agree to a price and other factors specified in regulation
for the construction of the project or a portion of the
project.
``(iv) Construction phase.--If an agreement is reached
under clause (iii), the contractor shall be responsible for
the construction of the project or portion of the project at
the negotiated price and other factors specified in
regulation.
``(B) Selection.--A contract shall be awarded to a
contractor using a competitive selection process based on
qualifications, experience, best value, or any other
combination of factors considered appropriate by the
contracting agency.
``(C) Timing.--
``(i) Relationship to nepa process.--Prior to the
completion of the process required under section 102 of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332), a
contracting agency may--

``(I) issue requests for proposals;
``(II) proceed with the award of a contract for
preconstruction services under subparagraph (A); and
``(III) issue notices to proceed with a preliminary design
and any work related to preliminary design.

``(ii) Preconstruction services phase.--If the
preconstruction services phase of a contract under
subparagraph (A)(ii) focuses primarily on one alternative,
the Secretary shall require that the contract include
appropriate provisions to achieve the objectives of section
102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4332) and comply with other applicable Federal laws
and regulations.
``(iii) Construction services phase.--A contracting agency
may not proceed with the award of the construction services
phase of a contract under subparagraph (A)(iv) and may not
proceed, or permit any consultant or contractor to proceed,
with construction until completion of the process required
under section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
``(iv) Approval requirement.--Prior to authorizing
construction activities, the Secretary shall approve the
contracting agency's price estimate for the entire project,
as well as any price agreement with the general contractor
for the project or a portion of the project.
``(v) Design activities.--A contracting agency may proceed,
at its expense, with design activities at any level of detail
for a project before completion of the review process
required for the project under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) without affecting
subsequent approvals required for the project. Design
activities carried out under this clause shall be eligible
for Federal reimbursement as a project expense in accordance
with the requirements under section 109(r).''.

SEC. 407. ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATION IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION
REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Preservation of Parklands.--Section 138 is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(c) Elimination of Duplication for Historic Sites and
Properties.--The requirements of this section shall be
considered to be satisfied for an historic site or property
where its treatment has been agreed upon in a memorandum of
agreement by invited and mandatory signatories, including the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, if participating,
in accordance with section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f).''.
(b) Policy on Lands, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and
Historic Sites.--Section 303 of title 49, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Elimination of Duplication for Historic Sites and
Properties.--The requirements of this section shall be
considered to be satisfied for an historic site or property
where its treatment has been agreed upon in a memorandum of
agreement by invited and mandatory signatories, including the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, if participating,
in accordance with section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f).''.

SEC. 408. FUNDING THRESHOLD.

Section 139(b) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3) Funding threshold.--The Secretary's approval of a
project receiving funds under this title or under chapter 53
of title 49 shall not be considered a Federal action for the
purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 if
such funds--
``(A) constitute 15 percent or less of the total estimated
project costs; or
``(B) are less than $10,000,000.''.

SEC. 409. EFFICIENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS FOR PROJECT
DECISIONMAKING.

(a) Flexibility.--Section 139(b) is further amended--
(1) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``, and any requirements
established in this section may be satisfied,'' after
``exercised''; and
(2) by adding after paragraph (3), as added by this Act,
the following:
``(4) Programmatic compliance.--At the request of a State,
the Secretary may modify the procedures developed under this
section to encourage programmatic approaches and strategies
with respect to environmental programs and permits (in lieu
of project-by-project reviews).''.
(b) Federal Lead Agency.--Section 139(c) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by adding at the end the following:
``If the project requires approval from more than one modal
administration within the Department, the Secretary shall
designate a single modal administration to serve as the
Federal lead agency for the Department in the environmental
review process for the project.'';
(2) in paragraph (3) by inserting ``or other approvals by
the Secretary'' after ``chapter 53 of title 49''; and
(3) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
``(5) Adoption and use of documents.--Any environmental
document prepared in accordance with this subsection shall be
adopted and used by any Federal agency in making any approval
of a project subject to this section as the document required
to be completed under the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969.''.
(c) Participating Agencies.--
(1) Effect of designation.--Section 139(d)(4) is amended to
read as follows:
``(4) Effect of designation.--
``(A) Requirement.--A participating agency shall comply
with the requirements of this section and any schedule
established under this section.
``(B) Implication.--Designation as a participating agency
under this subsection shall not imply that the participating
agency--
``(i) supports a proposed project; or
``(ii) has any jurisdiction over, or special expertise with
respect to evaluation of, the project.''.
(2) Concurrent reviews.--Section 139(d)(7) is amended to
read as follows:
``(7) Concurrent reviews.--Each participating agency and
cooperating agency shall--
``(A) carry out obligations of that agency under other
applicable law concurrently, and in conjunction, with the
review required under the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
``(B) formulate and implement administrative, policy, and
procedural mechanisms to enable the agency to ensure
completion of the environmental review process in a timely,
coordinated, and environmentally responsible manner.''.
(d) Project Initiation.--Section 139(e) is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``The project sponsor may
satisfy this requirement by submitting to the Secretary a
draft notice for publication in the Federal Register
announcing the preparation of an environmental impact
statement for the project.''.
(e) Alternatives Analysis.--Section 139(f) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows
``(B) Range of alternatives.--
``(i) In general.--Following participation under paragraph
(1), the lead agency shall determine the range of
alternatives for consideration in any document which the lead
agency is responsible for preparing for the project.
``(ii) Limitation.--The range of alternatives shall be
limited to alternatives that are consistent with the
transportation mode and general design of the project
described in the long-range transportation plan or
transportation improvement program prepared pursuant to
section 134 or 135 or section 5303 or 5304 of title 49.
``(iii) Restriction.--A Federal agency may not require the
evaluation of any alternative that was evaluated, but not
adopted--

``(I) in any prior State or Federal environmental document
with regard to the applicable long-range transportation plan
or transportation improvement program; or
``(II) after the preparation of a programmatic or tiered
environmental document that evaluated alternatives to the
project.

``(iv) Legal sufficiency.--The evaluation of the range of
alternatives shall be deemed legally sufficient if the
environmental document complies with the requirements of this
paragraph.'';
(B) in subparagraph (C)--
(i) by striking ``(C) Methodologies.--The lead agency'' and
inserting the following:
``(C) Methodologies.--
``(i) In general.--The lead agency'';
(ii) by striking ``in collaboration with participating
agencies at appropriate times during the study process'' and
inserting ``after consultation with participating agencies as
part of the scoping process''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Comments.--Each participating agency shall limit
comments on such methodologies to those issues that are
within the authority and expertise of such participating
agency.
``(iii) Studies.--The lead agency may not conduct studies
proposed by any participating agency that are not within the
authority or expertise of such participating agency.''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Limitations on the evaluation of impacts evaluated in
prior environmental documents.--
``(i) In general.--The lead agency may not reevaluate, and
a Federal agency may not require the reevaluation of,
cumulative impacts or growth-inducing impacts where such
impacts were previously evaluated in--

[[Page H1949]]

``(I) a long-range transportation plan or transportation
improvement program developed pursuant to section 134 or 135
or section 5303 or 5304 of title 49;
``(II) a prior environmental document approved by the
Secretary; or
``(III) a prior State environmental document approved
pursuant to a State law that is substantially equivalent to
section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).

``(ii) Legal sufficiency.--The evaluation of cumulative
impacts and growth inducing impacts shall be deemed legally
sufficient if the environmental document complies with the
requirements of this paragraph.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Effective decisionmaking.--
``(A) Concurrence.--At the discretion of the lead agency, a
participating agency shall be presumed to concur in the
determinations made by the lead agency under this subsection
unless the participating agency submits an objection to the
lead agency in writing within 30 days after receiving notice
of the lead agency's determination and specifies the
statutory basis for the objection.
``(B) Adoption of determination.--If the participating
agency concurs or does not object within the 30-day period,
the participating agency shall adopt the lead agency's
determination for purposes of any reviews, approvals, or
other actions taken by the participating agency as part of
the environmental review process for the project.''.
(f) Coordination Plan.--Section 139(g) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A) by striking ``project or category
of projects'' and inserting ``project, category of projects,
or program of projects'';
(2) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
``(3) Deadlines for decisions under other laws.--
``(A) Prior approval deadline.--If a participating agency
is required to make a determination regarding or otherwise
approve or disapprove the project prior to the record of
decision or finding of no significant impact of the lead
agency, such participating agency shall make such
determination or approval not later than 30 days after the
lead agency publishes notice of the availability of a final
environmental impact statement or other final environmental
document, or not later than such other date that is otherwise
required by law, whichever occurs first.
``(B) Other deadlines.--With regard to any determination or
approval of a participating agency that is not subject to
subparagraph (A), each participating agency shall make any
required determination regarding or otherwise approve or
disapprove the project not later than 90 days after the date
that the lead agency approves the record of decision or
finding of no significant impact for the project, or not
later than such other date that is otherwise required by law,
whichever occurs first.
``(C) Deemed approved.--In the event that any participating
agency fails to make a determination or approve or disapprove
the project within the applicable deadline described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B), the project shall be deemed
approved by such participating agency, and such approval
shall be deemed to comply with the applicable requirements of
Federal law.
``(D) Written finding.--The Secretary may issue a written
finding verifying the approval made in accordance with this
paragraph.''; and
(3) by striking paragraph (4).
(g) Issue Identification and Resolution.--Section 139(h)(4)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Resolution final.--
``(i) In general.--The lead agency and participating
agencies may not reconsider the resolution of any issue
agreed to by the relevant agencies in a meeting under
subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Compliance with applicable law.--Any such resolution
shall be deemed to comply with applicable law notwithstanding
that the agencies agreed to such resolution prior to the
approval of the environmental document.''.
(h) Streamlined Documentation and Decisionmaking.--Section
139 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (i) through (l) as
subsections (k) through (n), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (h) the following:
``(i) Streamlined Documentation and Decisionmaking.--
``(1) In general.--The lead agency in the environmental
review process for a project, in order to reduce paperwork
and expedite decisionmaking, shall prepare a condensed final
environmental impact statement.
``(2) Condensed format.--A condensed final environmental
impact statement for a project in the environmental review
process shall consist only of--
``(A) an incorporation by reference of the draft
environmental impact statement;
``(B) any updates to specific pages or sections of the
draft environmental impact statement as appropriate; and
``(C) responses to comments on the draft environmental
impact statement and copies of the comments.
``(3) Timing of decision.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, in conducting the environmental review
process for a project, the lead agency shall combine a final
environmental impact statement and a record of decision for
the project into a single document if--
``(A) the alternative approved in the record of decision is
either a preferred alternative that was identified in the
draft environmental impact statement or is a modification of
such preferred alternative that was developed in response to
comments on the draft environmental impact statement;
``(B) the Secretary has received a certification from a
State under section 128, if such a certification is required
for the project; and
``(C) the Secretary determines that the lead agency,
participating agency, or the project sponsor has committed to
implement the measures applicable to the approved alternative
that are identified in the final environmental impact
statement.
``(j) Supplemental Environmental Review and Re-
Evaluation.--
``(1) Supplemental environmental review.--After the
approval of a record of decision or finding of no significant
impact with regard to a project, an agency may not require
the preparation of a subsequent environmental document for
such project unless the lead agency determines that--
``(A) changes to the project will result in new significant
impacts that were not evaluated in the environmental
document; or
``(B) new information has become available or changes in
circumstances have occurred after the lead agency approval of
the project that will result in new significant impacts that
were not evaluated in the environmental document.
``(2) Re-evaluations.--The Secretary may only require the
re-evaluation of a document prepared under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
if--
``(A) the Secretary determines that the events in paragraph
(1)(A) or (1)(B) apply; and
``(B) more than 5 years has elapsed since the Secretary's
prior approval of the project or authorization of project
funding.
``(3) Change to record of decision.--After the approval of
a record of decision, the Secretary may not require the
record of decision to be changed solely because of a change
in the fiscal circumstances surrounding the project.''.
(i) Regulations.--Section 139(m) (as redesignated by
subsection (h)(1) of this section) is further amended to read
as follows:
``(m) Regulations.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of the Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2012, Part II, the Secretary, by regulation, shall--
``(A) implement this section; and
``(B) establish methodologies and procedures for evaluating
the environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts and
growth-inducing impacts, of transportation projects subject
to this section.
``(2) Compliance with applicable law.--Any environmental
document that utilizes the methodologies and procedures
established under this subsection shall be deemed to comply
with the applicable requirements of--
``(A) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) or its implementing regulations; or
``(B) any other Federal environmental statute applicable to
transportation projects.''.

SEC. 410. DISPOSAL OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES.

(a) Disposal of Historic Properties.--Section 156 is
amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and inserting ``Sale or
lease of real property''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Assessment of Adverse Effects.--Notwithstanding part
800 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, the sale or
lease by a State of any historic property that is not listed
in the National Register of Historic Places shall not be
considered an adverse effect to the property within any
consultation process carried out under section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 is
amended by striking the item relating to section 156 and
inserting the following:

``156. Sale or lease of real property.''.

SEC. 411. INTEGRATION OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

(a) In General.--Chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end
the following:

``Sec. 167. Integration of planning and environmental review

``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
``(1) Environmental review process.--
``(A) In general.--The term `environmental review process'
means the process for preparing for a project an
environmental impact statement, environmental assessment,
categorical exclusion, or other document prepared under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.).
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `environmental review process'
includes the process for and completion of any environmental
permit, approval, review, or study required for a project
under any Federal law other than the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
``(2) Planning product.--The term `planning product' means
any decision, analysis, study, or other documented result of
an evaluation or decisionmaking process carried out during
transportation planning.
``(3) Project.--The term `project' means any highway
project or program of projects, public transportation capital
project or program of projects, or multimodal project or

[[Page H1950]]

program of projects that requires the approval of the
Secretary.
``(4) Project sponsor.--The term `project sponsor' means
the agency or other entity, including any private or public-
private entity, that seeks approval of the Secretary for a
project.
``(b) Purpose and Findings.--
``(1) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to establish
the authority and provide procedures for achieving integrated
planning and environmental review processes to--
``(A) enable statewide and metropolitan planning processes
to more effectively serve as the foundation for project
decisions;
``(B) foster better decisionmaking;
``(C) reduce duplication in work;
``(D) avoid delays in transportation improvements; and
``(E) better transportation and environmental results for
communities and the United States.
``(2) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
``(A) This section is consistent with and is adopted in
furtherance of sections 101 and 102 of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4331 and 4332)
and section 109 of this title.
``(B) This section should be broadly construed and may be
applied to any project, class of projects, or program of
projects carried out under this title or chapter 53 of title
49.
``(c) Adoption of Planning Products for Use in NEPA
Proceedings.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law and subject to the conditions set forth in subsection
(e), the Federal lead agency for a project, at the request of
the project sponsors, may adopt and use a planning product in
proceedings relating to any class of action in the
environmental review process of the project.
``(2) Partial adoption of planning products.--The Federal
lead agency may adopt a planning product under paragraph (1)
in its entirety or may select portions for adoption.
``(3) Timing.--A determination under paragraph (1) with
respect to the adoption of a planning product shall be made
at the time the lead agencies decide the appropriate scope of
environmental review for the project.
``(d) Applicability.--
``(1) Planning decisions.--Planning decisions that may be
adopted pursuant to this section include--
``(A) a purpose and need or goals and objectives statement
for the project, including with respect to whether tolling,
private financial assistance, or other special financial
measures are necessary to implement the project;
``(B) a decision with respect to travel corridor location,
including project termini;
``(C) a decision with respect to modal choice, including a
decision to implement corridor or subarea study
recommendations to advance different modal solutions as
separate projects with independent utility;
``(D) a decision with respect to the elimination of
unreasonable alternatives and the selection of the range of
reasonable alternatives for detailed study during the
environmental review process;
``(E) a basic description of the environmental setting;
``(F) a decision with respect to methodologies for
analysis; and
``(G) identifications of programmatic level mitigation for
potential impacts that the Federal lead agency, in
consultation with Federal, State, local, and tribal resource
agencies, determines are most effectively addressed at a
regional or national program level, including--
``(i) system-level measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate
impacts of proposed transportation investments on
environmental resources, including regional ecosystem and
water resources; and
``(ii) potential mitigation activities, locations, and
investments.
``(2) Planning analyses.--Planning analyses that may be
adopted pursuant to this section include studies with respect
to--
``(A) travel demands;
``(B) regional development and growth;
``(C) local land use, growth management, and development;
``(D) population and employment;
``(E) natural and built environmental conditions;
``(F) environmental resources and environmentally sensitive
areas;
``(G) potential environmental effects, including the
identification of resources of concern and potential
cumulative effects on those resources, identified as a result
of a statewide or regional cumulative effects assessment; and
``(H) mitigation needs for a proposed action, or for
programmatic level mitigation, for potential effects that the
Federal lead agency determines are most effectively addressed
at a regional or national program level.
``(e) Conditions.--Adoption and use of a planning product
under this section is subject to a determination by the
Federal lead agency, in consultation with joint lead agencies
and project sponsors as appropriate, that the following
conditions have been met:
``(1) The planning product was developed through a planning
process conducted pursuant to applicable Federal law.
``(2) The planning process included broad multidisciplinary
consideration of systems-level or corridor-wide
transportation needs and potential effects.
``(3) During the planning process, notice was provided
through publication or other means to Federal, State, and
local government agencies and tribal governments that might
have an interest in the proposed project, and to members of
the general public, of the planning products that the
planning process might produce and that might be relied on
during the environmental review process, and such entities
have been provided an appropriate opportunity to participate
in the planning process leading to such planning product.
``(4) Prior to determining the scope of environmental
review for the project, the joint lead agencies have made
documentation relating to the planning product available to
Federal, State, and local governmental agencies and tribal
governments that may have an interest in the proposed action,
and to members of the general public.
``(5) There is no significant new information or new
circumstance that has a reasonable likelihood of affecting
the continued validity or appropriateness of the planning
product.
``(6) The planning product is based on reliable and
reasonably current data and reasonable and scientifically
acceptable methodologies.
``(7) The planning product is documented in sufficient
detail to support the decision or the results of the analysis
and to meet requirements for use of the information in the
environmental review process.
``(8) The planning product is appropriate for adoption and
use in the environmental review process for the project.
``(f) Effect of Adoption.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, any planning product adopted by the Federal
lead agency in accordance with this section shall not be
reconsidered or made the subject of additional interagency
consultation during the environmental review process of the
project unless the Federal lead agency, in consultation with
joint lead agencies and project sponsors as appropriate,
determines that there is significant new information or new
circumstances that affect the continued validity or
appropriateness of the adopted planning product. Any planning
product adopted by the Federal lead agency in accordance with
this section may be relied upon and used by other Federal
agencies in carrying out reviews of the project.
``(g) Rule of Construction.--This section may not be
construed to make the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) process applicable to the
transportation planning process conducted under chapter 52 of
title 49. Initiation of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 process as a part of, or concurrently with,
transportation planning activities does not subject
transportation plans and programs to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 process. This section may
not be construed to affect the use of planning products in
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 process
pursuant to other authorities under law or to restrict the
initiation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
process during planning.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter is
amended by adding at end the following:

``167. Integration of planning and environmental review.''.

SEC. 412. DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAMMATIC MITIGATION PLANS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 1 (as amended by this title) is
further amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 168. Development of programmatic mitigation plans

``(a) In General.--As part of the statewide or metropolitan
transportation planning process, a State or metropolitan
planning organization may develop one or more programmatic
mitigation plans to address the potential environmental
impacts of future transportation projects.
``(b) Scope.--
``(1) Scale.--A programmatic mitigation plan may be
developed on a regional, ecosystem, watershed, or statewide
scale.
``(2) Resources.--The plan may encompass multiple
environmental resources within a defined geographic area or
may focus on a specific resource, such as aquatic resources,
parklands, or wildlife habitat.
``(3) Project impacts.--The plan may address impacts from
all projects in a defined geographic area or may focus on a
specific type of project, such as bridge replacements.
``(4) Consultation.--The scope of the plan shall be
determined by the State or metropolitan planning
organization, as appropriate, in consultation with the agency
or agencies with jurisdiction over the resources being
addressed in the mitigation plan.
``(c) Contents.--A programmatic mitigation plan may
include--
``(1) an assessment of the condition of environmental
resources in the geographic area covered by the plan,
including an assessment of recent trends and any potential
threats to those resources;
``(2) an assessment of potential opportunities to improve
the overall quality of environmental resources in the
geographic area covered by the plan, through strategic
mitigation for impacts of transportation projects;
``(3) standard measures for mitigating certain types of
impacts;
``(4) parameters for determining appropriate mitigation for
certain types of impacts, such as mitigation ratios or
criteria for determining appropriate mitigation sites;

[[Page H1951]]

``(5) adaptive management procedures, such as protocols
that involve monitoring predicted impacts over time and
adjusting mitigation measures in response to information
gathered through the monitoring; and
``(6) acknowledgment of specific statutory or regulatory
requirements that must be satisfied when determining
appropriate mitigation for certain types of resources.
``(d) Process.--Before adopting a programmatic mitigation
plan, a State or metropolitan planning organization shall--
``(1) consult with the agency or agencies with jurisdiction
over the environmental resources considered in the
programmatic mitigation plan;
``(2) make a draft of the plan available for review and
comment by applicable environmental resource agencies and the
public;
``(3) consider any comments received from such agencies and
the public on the draft plan; and
``(4) address such comments in the final plan.
``(e) Integration With Other Plans.--A programmatic
mitigation plan may be integrated with other plans, including
watershed plans, ecosystem plans, species recovery plans,
growth management plans, and land use plans.
``(f) Consideration in Project Development and
Permitting.--If a programmatic mitigation plan has been
developed pursuant to this section, any Federal agency
responsible for environmental reviews, permits, or approvals
for a transportation project shall give substantial weight to
the recommendations in a programmatic mitigation plan when
carrying out their responsibilities under applicable laws.
``(g) Preservation of Existing Authorities.--Nothing in
this section limits the use of programmatic approaches to
reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter (as
amended by this title) is further amended by adding at the
end the following:

``168. Development of programmatic mitigation plans.''.

SEC. 413. STATE ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR CATEGORICAL
EXCLUSIONS.

Section 326(a) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``and only for types of
activities specifically designated by the Secretary'' and
inserting ``and for any type of activity for which a
categorical exclusion classification is appropriate''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Preservation of flexibility.--The Secretary shall not
require a State, as a condition of assuming responsibility
under this section, to forego project delivery methods that
are otherwise permissible for highway projects.''.

SEC. 414. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DELIVERY PROGRAM.

(a) Program Name.--Section 327 is amended--
(1) in the section heading by striking ``pilot''; and
(2) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``pilot''.
(b) Assumption of Responsibility.--Section 327(a)(2) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``highway'';
(2) in subparagraph (B) by striking clause (ii) and
inserting the following:
``(ii) the Secretary may not assign any responsibility
imposed on the Secretary by section 134 or 135 or section
5303 or 5304 of title 49.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) Preservation of flexibility.--The Secretary may not
require a State, as a condition of participation in the
program, to forego project delivery methods that are
otherwise permissible for projects.''.
(c) State Participation.--Section 327(b) is amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
``(1) Participating states.--All States are eligible to
participate in the program.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``this section, the
Secretary shall promulgate'' and inserting ``amendments to
this section by the Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2012, Part II, the Secretary shall amend, as appropriate,''.
(d) Written Agreement.--Section 327(c) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)(D) by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) have a term of not more than 5 years; and
``(5) be renewable.''.
(e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 327(e) is amended by
striking ``subsection (i)'' and inserting ``subsection (j)''.
(f) Audits.--Section 327(g)(1)(B) is amended by striking
``subsequent year'' and inserting ``of the third and fourth
years''.
(g) Monitoring.--Section 327 is further amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (h) and (i) as subsections
(i) and (j), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
``(h) Monitoring.--After the fourth year of the
participation of a State in the program, the Secretary shall
monitor compliance by the State with the written agreement,
including the provision by the State of financial resources
to carry out the written agreement.''.
(h) Termination.--Section 327(j) (as redesignated by
subsection (g)(1) of this section) is amended to read as
follows:
``(j) Termination.--The Secretary may terminate the
participation of any State in the program if--
``(1) the Secretary determines that the State is not
adequately carrying out the responsibilities assigned to the
State;
``(2) the Secretary provides to the State--
``(A) notification of the determination of noncompliance;
and
``(B) a period of at least 30 days during which to take
such corrective action as the Secretary determines is
necessary to comply with the applicable agreement; and
``(3) the State, after the notification and period provided
under paragraph (2), fails to take satisfactory corrective
action, as determined by the Secretary.''.
(i) Definitions.--Section 327 is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(k) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
``(1) Multimodal project.--The term `multimodal project'
means a project funded, in whole or in part, under this title
or chapter 53 of title 49 and involving the participation of
more than one Department of Transportation administration or
agency.
``(2) Project.--The term `project' means any highway
project, public transportation capital project, or multimodal
project that requires the approval of the Secretary.''.
(j) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 3 is
amended by striking the item relating to section 327 and
inserting the following:

``327. Surface transportation project delivery program.''.

SEC. 415. PROGRAM FOR ELIMINATING DUPLICATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 3 is amended by adding at the end
the following:

``Sec. 330. Program for eliminating duplication of
environmental reviews

``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a program
to eliminate duplicative environmental reviews and approvals
under State and Federal law of projects. Under this program,
a State may use State laws and procedures to conduct reviews
and make approvals in lieu of Federal environmental laws and
regulations, consistent with the provisions of this section.
``(2) Participating states.--All States are eligible to
participate in the program.
``(3) Scope of alternative review and approval
procedures.--For purposes of this section, alternative
environmental review and approval procedures may include one
or more of the following:
``(A) Substitution of one or more State environmental laws
for one or more Federal environmental laws, if the Secretary
determines in accordance with this section that the State
environmental laws provide environmental protection and
opportunities for public involvement that are substantially
equivalent to the applicable Federal environmental laws.
``(B) Substitution of one or more State regulations for
Federal regulations implementing one or more Federal
environmental laws, if the Secretary determines in accordance
with this section that the State regulations provide
environmental protection and opportunities for public
involvement that are substantially equivalent to the Federal
regulations.
``(b) Application.--To participate in the program, a State
shall submit to the Secretary an application containing such
information as the Secretary may require, including--
``(1) a full and complete description of the proposed
alternative environmental review and approval procedures of
the State;
``(2) for each State law or regulation included in the
proposed alternative environmental review and approval
procedures of the State, an explanation of the basis for
concluding that the law or regulation meets the requirements
under subsection (a)(3); and
``(3) evidence of having sought, received, and addressed
comments on the proposed application from the public and
appropriate Federal environmental resource agencies.
``(c) Review of Application.--The Secretary shall--
``(1) review an application submitted under subsection (b);
``(2) approve or disapprove the application in accordance
with subsection (d) not later than 90 days after the date of
the receipt of the application; and
``(3) transmit to the State notice of the approval or
disapproval, together with a statement of the reasons for the
approval or disapproval.
``(d) Approval of State Programs.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall approve each such
application if the Secretary finds that the proposed
alternative environmental review and approval procedures of
the State are substantially equivalent to the applicable
Federal environmental laws and Federal regulations.
``(2) Exclusion.--The National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) shall not apply to any
decision by the Secretary to approve or disapprove any
application submitted pursuant to this section.
``(e) Compliance With Permits.--Compliance with a permit or
other approval of a project issued pursuant to a program
approved by the Secretary under this section shall be deemed
compliance with the Federal

[[Page H1952]]

laws and regulations identified in the program approved by
the Secretary pursuant to this section.
``(f) Review and Termination.--
``(1) Review.--All State alternative environmental review
and approval procedures approved under this section shall be
reviewed by the Secretary not less than once every 5 years.
``(2) Public notice and comment.--In conducting the review
process under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide
notice and an opportunity for public comment.
``(3) Extensions and terminations.--At the conclusion of
the review process, the Secretary may extend the State
alternative environmental review and approval procedures for
an additional 5-year period or terminate the State program.
``(g) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this section and annually thereafter,
the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that
describes the administration of the program.
``(h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) Environmental law.--The term `environmental law'
includes any law that provides procedural or substantive
protection, as applicable, for the natural or built
environment with regard to the construction and operation of
projects.
``(2) Federal environmental laws.--The term `Federal
environmental laws' means laws governing the review of
environmental impacts of, and issuance of permits and other
approvals for, the construction and operation of projects,
including section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)), section 404 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C.
470f), and sections 7(a)(2), 9(a)(1)(B), and 10(a)(1)(B) of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2),
1538(a)(1)(B), 1539(a)(1)(B)).
``(3) Multimodal project.--The term `multimodal project'
means a project funded, in whole or in part, under this title
or chapter 53 of title 49 and involving the participation of
more than one Department of Transportation administration or
agency.
``(4) Project.--The term `project' means any highway
project, public transportation capital project, or multimodal
project that requires the approval of the Secretary.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter (as
amended by title I of this Act) is further amended by adding
at the end the following:

``330. Program for eliminating duplication of environmental reviews.''.

SEC. 416. STATE PERFORMANCE OF LEGAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEWS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 3 (as amended by this title) is
further amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 331. State performance of legal sufficiency reviews

``(a) In General.--At the request of any State
transportation department, the Federal Highway Administration
shall enter into an agreement with the State transportation
department to authorize the State to carry out the legal
sufficiency reviews for environmental impact statements and
environmental assessments under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in accordance
with this section.
``(b) Terms of Agreement.--An agreement authorizing a State
to carry out legal sufficiency reviews for Federal-aid
highway projects shall contain the following provisions:
``(1) A finding by the Federal Highway Administration that
the State has the capacity to carry out legal sufficiency
reviews that are equivalent in quality and consistency to the
reviews that would otherwise be conducted by attorneys
employed by such Administration.
``(2) An oversight process, including periodic reviews
conducted by attorneys employed by such Administration, to
evaluate the quality of the legal sufficiency reviews carried
out by the State transportation department under the
agreement.
``(3) A requirement for the State transportation department
to submit a written finding of legal sufficiency to the
Federal Highway Administration concurrently with the request
by the State for Federal approval of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
document.
``(4) An opportunity for the Federal Highway Administration
to conduct an additional legal sufficiency review for any
project, for not more than 30 days, if considered necessary
by the Federal Highway Administration.
``(5) Procedures allowing either party to the agreement to
terminate the agreement for any reason with 30 days notice to
the other party.
``(c) Effect of Agreement.--A legal sufficiency review
carried out by a State transportation department under this
section shall be deemed by the Federal Highway Administration
to satisfy the requirement for a legal sufficiency review in
sections 771.125(b) and 774.7(d) of title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations, or other applicable regulations issued by the
Federal Highway Administration.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter (as
amended by this title) is further amended by adding at the
end the following:

``331. State performance of legal sufficiency reviews.''.

SEC. 417. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS.

(a) In General.--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 under section
771.117(c) of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations.
(b) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Multimodal project.--The term ``multimodal project''
means a project funded, in whole or in part, under title 23,
United States Code, or chapter 53 of title 49 of such Code
and involving the participation of more than one Department
of Transportation administration or agency.
(2) Project.--The term ``project'' means any highway
project, public transportation capital project, or multimodal
project that requires the approval of the Secretary.

SEC. 418. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS DEADLINE.

(a) In General.--
(1) Deadline.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the environmental review process for a project shall be
completed not later than 270 days after the date on which the
notice of project initiation under section 139(e) of title
23, United States Code, is published in the Federal Register.
(2) Consequences of missed deadline.--If the environmental
review process for a project is not completed in accordance
with paragraph (1)--
(A) the project shall be considered to have no significant
impact to the human environment for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
and
(B) that classification shall be considered to be a final
agency action.
(b) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Environmental review process.--
(A) In general.--The term ``environmental review process''
means the process for preparing for a project an
environmental impact statement, environmental assessment,
categorical exclusion, or other document prepared under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.).
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``environmental review process''
includes the process for and completion of any environmental
permit, approval, review, or study required for a project
under any Federal law other than the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(2) Lead agency.--The term ``lead agency'' means the
Department of Transportation and, if applicable, any State or
local governmental entity serving as a joint lead agency
pursuant to this section.
(3) Multimodal project.--The term ``multimodal project''
means a project funded, in whole or in part, under title 23,
United States Code, or chapter 53 of title 49 of such Code
and involving the participation of more than one Department
of Transportation administration or agency.
(4) Project.--The term ``project'' means any highway
project, public transportation capital project, or multimodal
project that requires the approval of the Secretary.

SEC. 419. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE.

(a) Alternative Relocation Payment Process.--
(1) Establishment.--For the purpose of identifying
improvements in the timeliness of providing relocation
assistance to persons displaced as a result of Federal or
federally-assisted programs and projects, the Secretary shall
establish an alternative relocation payment process under
which payments to displaced persons eligible for relocation
assistance pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
4601 et seq.), are calculated based on reasonable estimates
and paid in advance of the physical displacement of the
displaced person.
(2) Payments.--
(A) Timing of payments.--Relocation assistance payments may
be provided to the displaced person at the same time as
payments of just compensation for real property acquired for
a program or project of the State.
(B) Combined payment.--Payments for relocation and just
compensation may be combined into a single unallocated
amount.
(3) Conditions for state use of alternative process.--
(A) In general.--After public notice and an opportunity to
comment, the Secretary shall adopt criteria for States to use
the alternative relocation payment process established by the
Secretary.
(B) Memorandum of agreement.--In order to use the
alternative relocation payment process, a State shall enter
into a memorandum of agreement with the Secretary that
includes provisions relating to--
(i) the selection of projects or programs within the State
to which the alternative relocation payment process will be
applied;
(ii) program and project-level monitoring;
(iii) performance measurement;
(iv) reporting requirements; and
(v) the circumstances under which the Secretary may
terminate or suspend the authority of the State to use the
alternative relocation payment process.
(C) Required information.--A State may use the alternative
relocation payment process only after the displaced persons
affected by a program or project--
(i) are informed in writing--

[[Page H1953]]

(I) that the relocation payments the displaced persons
receive under the alternative relocation payment process may
be higher or lower than the amount that the displaced persons
would have received under the standard relocation assistance
process; and
(II) of their right not to participate in the alternative
relocation payment process; and

(ii) agree in writing to the alternative relocation payment
process.
(D) Election not to participate.--The displacing agency
shall provide any displaced person who elects not to
participate in the alternative relocation payment process
with relocation assistance in accordance with the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.).
(4) Protections against inconsistent treatment.--If other
Federal agencies plan displacements in or adjacent to an area
of a project using the alternative relocation payment process
within the same time period as a project acquisition and
relocation action of the project, the Secretary shall adopt
measures to protect against inconsistent treatment of
displaced persons. Such measures may include a determination
that the alternative relocation payment process authority may
not be used on a specific project.
(5) Report.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress an
annual report on the implementation of the alternative
relocation payment process.
(B) Contents.--The report shall include an evaluation of
the merits of the alternative relocation payment process,
including the effects of the alternative relocation payment
process on--
(i) displaced persons and the protections afforded to such
persons by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et
seq.);
(ii) the efficiency of the delivery of Federal-aid highway
projects and overall effects on the Federal-aid highway
program; and
(iii) the achievement of the purposes of the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.).
(6) Limitation.--The alternative relocation payment process
under this section may be used only on projects funded under
title 23, United States Code, in cases in which the funds are
administered by the Federal Highway Administration.
(7) NEPA applicability.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the use of the alternative relocation
payment process established under this section on a project
funded under title 23, United States Code, and administered
by the Federal Highway Administration is not a major Federal
action requiring analysis or approval under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(b) Uniform Relocation Assistance Act Amendments.--
(1) Moving and related expenses.--Section 202 of the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4622) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(4) by striking ``$10,000'' and
inserting ``$25,000, as adjusted by regulation, in accordance
with section 213(d)''; and
(B) in the second sentence of subsection (c) by striking
``$20,000'' and inserting ``$40,000, as adjusted by
regulation, in accordance with section 213(d)''.
(2) Replacement housing for homeowners.--The first sentence
of section 203(a)(1) of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
4623(a)(1)) is amended by--
(A) striking ``$22,500'' and inserting ``$31,000, as
adjusted by regulation, in accordance with section 213(d),'';
and
(B) striking ``one hundred and eighty days prior to'' and
inserting ``90 days before''.
(3) Replacement housing for tenants and certain others.--
Section 204 of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4624) is
amended--
(A) in the second sentence of subsection (a) by striking
``$5,250'' and inserting ``$7,200, as adjusted by regulation,
in accordance with section 213(d)''; and
(B) in the second sentence of subsection (b) by striking
``, except'' and all that follows through the end of the
subsection and inserting a period.
(4) Duties of lead agency.--Section 213 of the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4633) is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (2) by striking ``and'';
(ii) in paragraph (3) by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) that each Federal agency that has programs or
projects requiring the acquisition of real property or
causing a displacement from real property subject to the
provisions of this Act shall provide to the lead agency an
annual summary report that describes the activities conducted
by the Federal agency.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Adjustment of Payments.--The head of the lead agency
may adjust, by regulation, the amounts of relocation payments
provided under sections 202(a)(4), 202(c), 203(a), and 204(a)
if the head of the lead agency determines that cost of
living, inflation, or other factors indicate that the
payments should be adjusted to meet the policy objectives of
this Act.''.
(5) Agency coordination.--Title II of the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.) is amended by inserting
after section 213 (42 U.S.C. 4633) the following:

``SEC. 214. AGENCY COORDINATION.

``(a) Agency Capacity.--Each Federal agency responsible for
funding or carrying out relocation and acquisition activities
shall have adequately trained personnel and such other
resources as are necessary to manage and oversee the
relocation and acquisition program of the Federal agency in
accordance with this Act.
``(b) Interagency Agreements.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of the enactment of this section, each Federal
agency responsible for funding relocation and acquisition
activities (other than the agency serving as the lead agency)
shall enter into a memorandum of understanding with the lead
agency that--
``(1) provides for periodic training of the personnel of
the Federal agency, which in the case of a Federal agency
that provides Federal financial assistance, may include
personnel of any displacing agency that receives Federal
financial assistance;
``(2) addresses ways in which the lead agency may provide
assistance and coordination to the Federal agency relating to
compliance with this Act on a program or project basis; and
``(3) addresses the funding of the training, assistance,
and coordination activities provided by the lead agency, in
accordance with subsection (c).
``(c) Interagency Payments.--
``(1) In general.--For the fiscal year that begins 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this section, and each
fiscal year thereafter, each Federal agency responsible for
funding relocation and acquisition activities (other than the
agency serving as the lead agency) shall transfer to the lead
agency for the fiscal year, such funds as are necessary, but
not less than $35,000, to support the training, assistance,
and coordination activities of the lead agency described in
subsection (b).
``(2) Included costs.--The cost to a Federal agency of
providing the funds described in paragraph (1) shall be
included as part of the cost of 1 or more programs or
projects undertaken by the Federal agency or with Federal
financial assistance that result in the displacement of
persons or the acquisition of real property.''.
(c) Cooperation With Federal Agencies.--Section 308(a) is
amended to read as follows:
``(a) Authorized Activities.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may perform, by contract
or otherwise, authorized engineering or other services in
connection with the survey, construction, maintenance, or
improvement of highways for other Federal agencies,
cooperating foreign countries, and State cooperating
agencies.
``(2) Inclusions.--Services authorized under paragraph (1)
may include activities authorized under section 214 of the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.).
``(3) Reimbursement.--Reimbursement for services carried
out under this subsection, including depreciation on
engineering and road-building equipment, shall be credited to
the applicable appropriation.''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 619, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, the folders that I am holding here
represent our dysfunctional Federal bureaucracy. They provide a stark
example of the burdensome red tape that a Wisconsin business must go
through just to get approval of a single project.
Mr. Chairman, in this folder is when the county controls a project.
This folder is when the State controls the project. Mr. Chairman, this
folder is when the Federal Government controls the project.
Well, these examples aren't specifically for a highway project. They
are emblematic of the bureaucracy our Federal Government imposes in
northeastern Wisconsin and across the Nation. My amendment today will
smooth the road for our infrastructure projects by reducing the
redundant permitting requirements that prevent us from rebuilding our
roads and bridges across this country.
My amendment includes many of the practical reforms that I and my
colleagues on the Transportation Committee have championed under
Chairman Mica's leadership. Today, the average life span of a
construction project is 15 years, but only 5 of those years involve
actual on-the-ground construction.
Let me say that again. At least 10 years of a project are not spent
building anything, but instead are spent filling thousands of folders
just like these with millions of pages of paperwork.

[[Page H1954]]

My amendment expedites this process. In some cases we can cut this
timeline in half merely by allowing the Federal and State agencies to
work together. How about that for an idea, to work together on the
review and permitting process.
My amendment sets hard deadlines for Federal agencies to approve
infrastructure projects, no longer leaving them in limbo. There has
been a lot of talk about shovel-ready projects in recent years. Well,
my amendment will help States, municipalities, and contractors to put
their pencils down and, Mr. Chairman, pick the shovels up. It's exactly
what we need in a time when our economy is struggling.
The Federal Government needs to stop putting up roadblocks to job
creation and figure out ways to make things easier and less costly. My
amendment would do just that.
It also exempts certain unplanned emergencies from some of the review
processes. When a State or city is hit by damaging storms or unexpected
flooding, our top priority should be to get our roads and bridges
repaired, not subjecting our communities to an endless permitting
process that may further harm their quality of life.
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is not perfect, but then again
no bill ever is. However, my amendment will put us on the road to
reforming how we build and maintain our infrastructure throughout this
country, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RAHALL. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. 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.
Mr. RIBBLE. Will the gentleman yield?
Our amendment takes that----
Mr. DeFAZIO. 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?

{time} 1530

Mr. RIBBLE. If the gentleman will yield, it's just in the right-of-
way, though.
Mr. DeFAZIO. 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.
Mr. RIBBLE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. RIBBLE. I can say this to you, that I have full confidence in
your State's environmental protection. I have full confidence in the
leaders in the State of Wisconsin.
Mr. DeFAZIO. 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.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DeFAZIO. 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.
Mr. RIBBLE. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him on
his amendment.
I think it's a great amendment. As a freshman, you have done
tremendous work on the committee. And you've been in Washington only a
year-and-a-half, and yet you brought a shovel here. That shovel shovels
more than just dirt. It shovels other stuff that happens here in
Washington. And it's time we clear some of that out to be able to
streamline building roads and highways in this country.
And that's what your amendment does. It cuts bureaucratic red tape,
allows the Federal agencies to review transportation projects
concurrently, which is extremely important. It delegates project
approval authority to the States, establishes hard deadlines to Federal
agencies to make decisions on permits, which is going to definitely
speed up the process. It expands the list of activities that qualify
for categorical exclusions, an approval process that's faster and
simpler than the standard process. The environmental protections do
remain in place.
I disagree with the gentleman from Oregon. I have all the confidence
in the world that what the gentleman has in his amendment here will
allow just what's in the right-of-way. That's what we interpreted, and
I believe that's how the States will interpret it. So I have all the
confidence that this amendment is properly prepared and we're going to
pass it here on the floor today.
So, again, these are practical reforms. Time is money, and anybody
that's been in business knows time is money. And that's what these
reforms are going to do: reduce the time, which will reduce the cost to
get us highways and bridges built faster in this country.

I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble) on his excellent
work and his work on this committee and also the chairman for his
tireless efforts in bringing the extension to the floor. And as we move
into conference, I'm confident we're going to come up with something
that's better than we see from the other side.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
While I strongly support the efficient review of projects to ensure
timely project delivery, I believe it is possible to balance these
needs with adequate opportunity for public input. Unfortunately, the
provisions in the Ribble amendment are far beyond balanced and would
severely limit public input into surface transportation decisions.
In effect, the amendment places a roadblock on public participation
in reviewing transportation projects by limiting and, in certain cases,
outright waiving NEPA. That goes far beyond streamlining. Locking the
public out of the decisionmaking process is steamrolling our
constituents and local governments.
The most galling aspect of this amendment is that it would completely
exempt any and all highway projects where the Federal share of the
costs is less than $10 million or 15 percent of project costs from the
requirements to provide public participation and an analysis of
alternatives in the project decisionmaking process.
Proponents of the amendment argue that NEPA and other laws are
causing years of project delays. That's simply

[[Page H1955]]

not true. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the vast
majority of projects delivered both by the Federal Highway
Administration and the FTA--96 percent, to be exact--already go through
minimal NEPA review, meaning that all NEPA compliance is completed
within 2\1/4\ months to 6 months. Ironically, this amendment could
increase those delays by excluding the public from participation in the
project review process and increasing the likelihood of public
opposition to a project, leading to greater delays in project delivery.
Now, many of us know the public, if they're locked out of a
decisionmaking project or review process where they feel they have a
legitimate right to participate, where are they going to go? They're
going to go to the courts and sue. Does the gentleman think that the
judicial process, when you have to face lawsuit after lawsuit after
lawsuit, is going to be streamlining the process? I think not. We're
looking at a longer process there than any environmental review would
ever entail.
Again, while I strongly support efficient review and sufficient
review of projects to ensure timely project delivery, this amendment
goes too far. It undermines public participation in local decisions and
could potentially create greater problems of project delivery. And I
would urge the defeat of the gentleman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RIBBLE. I do want to thank the ranking member. We do have a
disagreement, and disagreements happen in this Chamber a lot. But
anyone who's traveled our roads and highways and tried to cross bridges
that have been falling apart, that are filled with potholes, that have
needed repairs for, sometimes, decades recognizes the real cost and
real cause of the delay.
Mr. Chairman, I would note that my amendment in no way eliminates
NEPA or the need for an environmental review to occur. However, our
current process reduces redundant submissions, and approvals can render
a road project obsolete before the ground has ever been broken.
My amendment merely ensures that Federal and State governments get to
actually work together in doing the review. They get to work together
to do this. And unlike others, I have full confidence in the people
that live in the States where this work is going to be done. They're
the neighbors of these road projects. They're the ones that swim in the
lakes and streams and drink the water, breathe the air. They're the
ones that live there. They ought to have more say on how these projects
are completed, and we can actually get more projects done because of
this.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin will be
postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. McKinley

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
House Report 112 446.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following (and conform the
table of contents of the bill accordingly):

TITLE IV--COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS

SEC. 401. HIGHWAY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SAFETY THROUGH THE
PROTECTION OF COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUAL
RECYCLING.

(a) In General.--Subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:

``SEC. 4011. MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF COAL COMBUSTION
RESIDUALS.

``(a) State Permit Programs for Coal Combustion
Residuals.--Each State may adopt and implement a coal
combustion residuals permit program.
``(b) State Actions.--
``(1) Notification.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of enactment of this section (except as provided by the
deadline identified under subsection (d)(2)(B)), the Governor
of each State shall notify the Administrator, in writing,
whether such State will adopt and implement a coal combustion
residuals permit program.
``(2) Certification.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 36 months after the date
of enactment of this section (except as provided in
subsections (f)(1)(A) and (f)(1)(C)), in the case of a State
that has notified the Administrator that it will implement a
coal combustion residuals permit program, the head of the
lead State agency responsible for implementing the coal
combustion residuals permit program shall submit to the
Administrator a certification that such coal combustion
residuals permit program meets the specifications described
in subsection (c)(1).
``(B) Contents.--A certification submitted under this
paragraph shall include--
``(i) a letter identifying the lead State agency
responsible for implementing the coal combustion residuals
permit program, signed by the head of such agency;
``(ii) identification of any other State agencies involved
with the implementation of the coal combustion residuals
permit program;
``(iii) a narrative description that provides an
explanation of how the State will ensure that the coal
combustion residuals permit program meets the requirements of
this section, including a description of the State's--

``(I) process to inspect or otherwise determine compliance
with such permit program;
``(II) process to enforce the requirements of such permit
program; and
``(III) public participation process for the promulgation,
amendment, or repeal of regulations for, and the issuance of
permits under, such permit program;

``(iv) a legal certification that the State has, at the
time of certification, fully effective statutes or
regulations necessary to implement a coal combustion
residuals permit program that meets the specifications
described in subsection (c)(1); and
``(v) copies of State statutes and regulations described in
clause (iv).
``(3) Maintenance of 4005(c) or 3006 program.--In order to
adopt or implement a coal combustion residuals permit program
under this section (including pursuant to subsection (f)),
the State agency responsible for implementing a coal
combustion residuals permit program in a State shall maintain
an approved program under section 4005(c) or an authorized
program under section 3006.
``(c) Permit Program Specifications.--
``(1) Minimum requirements.--The specifications described
in this subsection for a coal combustion residuals permit
program are as follows:
``(A) The revised criteria described in paragraph (2) shall
apply to a coal combustion residuals permit program, except
as provided in paragraph (3).
``(B) Each structure shall be, in accordance with generally
accepted engineering standards for the structural integrity
of such structures, designed, constructed, and maintained to
provide for containment of the maximum volumes of coal
combustion residuals appropriate for the structure. If a
structure is determined by the head of the agency responsible
for implementing the coal combustion residuals permit program
to be deficient, the head of such agency has authority to
require action to correct the deficiency according to a
schedule determined by such agency. If the identified
deficiency is not corrected according to such schedule, the
head of such agency has authority to require that the
structure close in accordance with subsection (h).
``(C) The coal combustion residuals permit program shall
apply the revised criteria promulgated pursuant to section
4010(c) for location, design, groundwater monitoring,
corrective action, financial assurance, closure, and post-
closure described in paragraph (2) and the specifications
described in this paragraph to surface impoundments.
``(D) If a structure that is classified as posing a high
hazard potential pursuant to the guidelines published by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency entitled `Federal
Guidelines for Dam Safety: Hazard Potential Classification
System for Dams' (FEMA Publication Number 333) is determined
by the head of the agency responsible for implementing the
coal combustion residuals permit program to be deficient with
respect to the structural integrity requirement in
subparagraph (B), the head of such agency has authority to
require action to correct the deficiency according to a
schedule determined by such agency. If the identified
deficiency is not corrected according to such schedule, the
head of such agency has authority to require that the
structure close in accordance with subsection (h).
``(E) New structures that first receive coal combustion
residuals after the date of enactment of this section shall
be constructed with a base located a minimum of two feet
above the upper limit of the natural water table.
``(F) In the case of a coal combustion residuals permit
program implemented by a State, the State has the authority
to inspect structures and implement and enforce such permit
program.
``(G) In the case of a coal combustion residuals permit
program implemented by a State, the State has the authority
to address wind dispersal of dust from coal combustion
residuals by requiring dust control measures, as determined
appropriate by the head of the lead State agency responsible
for implementing the coal combustion residuals permit
program.
``(2) Revised criteria.--The revised criteria described in
this paragraph are--

[[Page H1956]]

``(A) the revised criteria for design, groundwater
monitoring, corrective action, closure, and post-closure, for
structures, including--
``(i) for new structures, and lateral expansions of
existing structures, that first receive coal combustion
residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the
revised criteria regarding design requirements described in
section 258.40 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
``(ii) for all structures that receive coal combustion
residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the
revised criteria regarding groundwater monitoring and
corrective action requirements described in subpart E of part
258 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, except that,
for the purposes of this paragraph, such revised criteria
shall also include--

``(I) for the purposes of detection monitoring, the
constituents boron, chloride, conductivity, fluoride,
mercury, pH, sulfate, sulfide, and total dissolved solids;
and
``(II) for the purposes of assessment monitoring, the
constituents aluminum, boron, chloride, fluoride, iron,
manganese, molybdenum, pH, sulfate, and total dissolved
solids;

``(B) the revised criteria for location restrictions
described in--
``(i) for new structures, and lateral expansions of
existing structures, that first receive coal combustion
residuals after the date of enactment of this section,
sections 258.11 through 258.15 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations; and
``(ii) for existing structures that receive coal combustion
residuals after the date of enactment of this section,
sections 258.11 and 258.15 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations;
``(C) for all structures that receive coal combustion
residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the
revised criteria for air quality described in section 258.24
of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations;
``(D) for all structures that receive coal combustion
residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the
revised criteria for financial assurance described in subpart
G of part 258 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations;
``(E) for all structures that receive coal combustion
residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the
revised criteria for surface water described in section
258.27 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations;
``(F) for all structures that receive coal combustion
residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the
revised criteria for recordkeeping described in section
258.29 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations;
``(G) for landfills and other land-based units, other than
surface impoundments, that receive coal combustion residuals
after the date of enactment of this section, the revised
criteria for run-on and run-off control systems described in
section 258.26 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
``(H) for surface impoundments that receive coal combustion
residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the
revised criteria for run-off control systems described in
section 258.26(a)(2) of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations.
``(3) Applicability of certain requirements.--A State may
determine that one or more of the requirements of the revised
criteria described in paragraph (2) is not needed for the
management of coal combustion residuals in that State, and
may decline to apply such requirement as part of its coal
combustion residuals permit program. If a State declines to
apply a requirement under this paragraph, the State shall
include in the certification under subsection (b)(2) a
description of such requirement and the reasons such
requirement is not needed in the State. If the Administrator
determines that a State determination under this paragraph
does not accurately reflect the needs for the management of
coal combustion residuals in the State, the Administrator may
treat such State determination as a deficiency under
subsection (d).
``(d) Written Notice and Opportunity to Remedy.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall provide to a
State written notice and an opportunity to remedy
deficiencies in accordance with paragraph (2) if at any time
the State--
``(A) does not satisfy the notification requirement under
subsection (b)(1);
``(B) has not submitted a certification under subsection
(b)(2);
``(C) does not satisfy the maintenance requirement under
subsection (b)(3); or
``(D) is not implementing a coal combustion residuals
permit program that meets the specifications described in
subsection (c)(1).
``(2) Contents of notice; deadline for response.--A notice
provided under this subsection shall--
``(A) include findings of the Administrator detailing any
applicable deficiencies in--
``(i) compliance by the State with the notification
requirement under subsection (b)(1);
``(ii) compliance by the State with the certification
requirement under subsection (b)(2);
``(iii) compliance by the State with the maintenance
requirement under subsection (b)(3); and
``(iv) the State coal combustion residuals permit program
in meeting the specifications described in subsection (c)(1);
and
``(B) identify, in collaboration with the State, a
reasonable deadline, which shall be not sooner than 6 months
after the State receives the notice, by which the State shall
remedy the deficiencies detailed under subparagraph (A).
``(e) Implementation by Administrator.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall implement a coal
combustion residuals permit program for a State only in the
following circumstances:
``(A) If the Governor of such State notifies the
Administrator under subsection (b)(1) that such State will
not adopt and implement such a permit program.
``(B) If such State has received a notice under subsection
(d) and, after any review brought by the State under section
7006, fails, by the deadline identified in such notice under
subsection (d)(2)(B), to remedy the deficiencies detailed in
such notice under subsection (d)(2)(A).
``(C) If such State informs the Administrator, in writing,
that such State will no longer implement such a permit
program.
``(2) Requirements.--If the Administrator implements a coal
combustion residuals permit program for a State under
paragraph (1), such permit program shall consist of the
specifications described in subsection (c)(1).
``(3) Enforcement.--If the Administrator implements a coal
combustion residuals permit program for a State under
paragraph (1), the authorities referred to in section
4005(c)(2)(A) shall apply with respect to coal combustion
residuals and structures and the Administrator may use such
authorities to inspect, gather information, and enforce the
requirements of this section in the State.
``(f) State Control After Implementation by
Administrator.--
``(1) State control.--
``(A) New adoption and implementation by state.--For a
State for which the Administrator is implementing a coal
combustion residuals permit program under subsection
(e)(1)(A), the State may adopt and implement such a permit
program by--
``(i) notifying the Administrator that the State will adopt
and implement such a permit program;
``(ii) not later than 6 months after the date of such
notification, submitting to the Administrator a certification
under subsection (b)(2); and
``(iii) receiving from the Administrator--

``(I) a determination that the State coal combustion
residuals permit program meets the specifications described
in subsection (c)(1); and
``(II) a timeline for transition of control of the coal
combustion residuals permit program.

``(B) Remedying deficient permit program.--For a State for
which the Administrator is implementing a coal combustion
residuals permit program under subsection (e)(1)(B), the
State may adopt and implement such a permit program by--
``(i) remedying the deficiencies detailed in the notice
provided under subsection (d)(2)(A); and
``(ii) receiving from the Administrator--

``(I) a determination that the deficiencies detailed in
such notice have been remedied; and
``(II) a timeline for transition of control of the coal
combustion residuals permit program.

``(C) Resumption of implementation by state.--For a State
for which the Administrator is implementing a coal combustion
residuals permit program under subsection (e)(1)(C), the
State may adopt and implement such a permit program by--
``(i) notifying the Administrator that the State will adopt
and implement such a permit program;
``(ii) not later than 6 months after the date of such
notification, submitting to the Administrator a certification
under subsection (b)(2); and
``(iii) receiving from the Administrator--

``(2) Review of determination.--
``(A) Determination required.--The Administrator shall make
a determination under paragraph (1) not later than 90 days
after the date on which the State submits a certification
under paragraph (1)(A)(ii) or (1)(C)(ii), or notifies the
Administrator that the deficiencies have been remedied
pursuant to paragraph (1)(B)(i), as applicable.
``(B) Review.--A State may obtain a review of a
determination by the Administrator under paragraph (1) as if
such determination was a final regulation for purposes of
section 7006.
``(3) Implementation during transition.--
``(A) Effect on actions and orders.--Actions taken or
orders issued pursuant to a coal combustion residuals permit
program shall remain in effect if--
``(i) a State takes control of its coal combustion
residuals permit program from the Administrator under
paragraph (1); or
``(ii) the Administrator takes control of a coal combustion
residuals permit program from a State under subsection (e).
``(B) Change in requirements.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply
to such actions and orders until such time as the
Administrator or the head of the lead State agency
responsible for implementing the coal combustion residuals
permit program, as applicable--

[[Page H1957]]

``(i) implements changes to the requirements of the coal
combustion residuals permit program with respect to the basis
for the action or order; or
``(ii) certifies the completion of a corrective action that
is the subject of the action or order.
``(4) Single permit program.--If a State adopts and
implements a coal combustion residuals permit program under
this subsection, the Administrator shall cease to implement
the permit program implemented under subsection (e) for such
State.
``(g) Effect on Determination Under 4005(c) or 3006.--The
Administrator shall not consider the implementation of a coal
combustion residuals permit program by the Administrator
under subsection (e) in making a determination of approval
for a permit program or other system of prior approval and
conditions under section 4005(c) or of authorization for a
program under section 3006.
``(h) Closure.--If it is determined, pursuant to a coal
combustion residuals permit program, that a structure should
close, the time period and method for the closure of such
structure shall be set forth in a closure plan that
establishes a deadline for completion and that takes into
account the nature and the site-specific characteristics of
the structure to be closed. In the case of a surface
impoundment, the closure plan shall require, at a minimum,
the removal of liquid and the stabilization of remaining
waste, as necessary to support the final cover.
``(i) Authority.--
``(1) State authority.--Nothing in this section shall
preclude or deny any right of any State to adopt or enforce
any regulation or requirement respecting coal combustion
residuals that is more stringent or broader in scope than a
regulation or requirement under this section.
``(2) Authority of the administrator.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (e) of
this section and section 6005 of this title, the
Administrator shall, with respect to the regulation of coal
combustion residuals, defer to the States pursuant to this
section.
``(B) Imminent hazard.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect the authority of the Administrator under
section 7003 with respect to coal combustion residuals.
``(C) Technical and enforcement assistance only upon
request.--Upon request from the head of a lead State agency
that is implementing a coal combustion residuals permit
program, the Administrator may provide to such State agency
only the technical or enforcement assistance requested.
``(3) Citizen suits.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect the authority of a person to commence a
civil action in accordance with section 7002.
``(j) Mine Reclamation Activities.--A coal combustion
residuals permit program implemented under subsection (e) by
the Administrator shall not apply to the utilization,
placement, and storage of coal combustion residuals at
surface mining and reclamation operations.
``(k) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Coal combustion residuals.--The term `coal combustion
residuals' means--
``(A) the solid wastes listed in section 3001(b)(3)(A)(i),
including recoverable materials from such wastes;
``(B) coal combustion wastes that are co-managed with
wastes produced in conjunction with the combustion of coal,
provided that such wastes are not segregated and disposed of
separately from the coal combustion wastes and comprise a
relatively small proportion of the total wastes being
disposed in the structure;
``(C) fluidized bed combustion wastes;
``(D) wastes from the co-burning of coal with non-hazardous
secondary materials provided that coal makes up at least 50
percent of the total fuel burned; and
``(E) wastes from the co-burning of coal with materials
described in subparagraph (A) that are recovered from
monofills.
``(2) Coal combustion residuals permit program.--The term
`coal combustion residuals permit program' means a permit
program or other system of prior approval and conditions that
is adopted by or for a State for the management and disposal
of coal combustion residuals to the extent such activities
occur in structures in such State.
``(3) Structure.--The term `structure' means a landfill,
surface impoundment, or other land-based unit which may
receive coal combustion residuals.
``(4) Revised criteria.--The term `revised criteria' means
the criteria promulgated for municipal solid waste landfill
units under section 4004(a) and under section 1008(a)(3), as
revised under section 4010(c) in accordance with the
requirement of such section that the criteria protect human
health and the environment.''.
(b) 2000 Regulatory Determination.--Nothing in this
section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be
construed to alter in any manner the Environmental Protection
Agency's regulatory determination entitled ``Notice of
Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the Combustion of
Fossil Fuels'', published at 65 Fed. Reg. 32214 (May 22,
2000), that the fossil fuel combustion wastes addressed in
that determination do not warrant regulation under subtitle C
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.).
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents contained
in section 1001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 4010 the
following:

``Sec. 4011. Management and disposal of coal combustion residuals.''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 619, the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. McKinley) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Mica and the
leadership for working with our office to allow this amendment to
proceed and to be offered.
Just a reminder, this issue passed the House on a 2 1 vote last
October and previously on a continuing resolution. The legislation has
had strong bipartisan support, with numbers of Democrats voting in
favor.
So we're not here to rehash those old fights. What we're here to do
is discuss how fly ash pertains to maximizing funds for our roads and
our bridges and our construction projects and protecting hundreds of
thousands of jobs all across America. But there are those that don't
see the correlation between coal ash and concrete, even though it's
been an integral part of concrete in America for over 80 years.
Quite frankly, upwards of 316,000 jobs are at stake with this
amendment and over $100 billion in roads, bridge, and infrastructure
projects if coal ash is not recycled into concrete. Keep in mind, 60
million tons of fly ash are recycled annually.
Let's read some quotes from some of the individuals that have talked
about this.
The Veritas Economic Consulting report talks about 316,000 jobs.
There's one from the American Road and Transportation Builders
Association talking about the $100 billion. Here's one from the Home
Builders Association:

Removing coal ash from the supply chain would increase the
price of concrete by an average of 10 percent.

{time} 1540

Fly ash replaces the American concrete pipe and replaces 15 million
tons of cement in its use. Look at what the administration's agencies
are talking about under the Department of the Interior and the
Department of Transportation.
Department of the Interior:

We concur with industry leaders who feel strongly that if
fly ash is designated a hazardous waste, it will no longer be
used in concrete.

Here from the same Department:

Fly ash costs approximately 20 to 50 percent less than the
cost of cement.

From the Department of Transportation:

Fly ash is a valuable byproduct used in highway facility
construction. It is a vital component of concrete and is
important for a number of other infrastructure uses.

And the last:

Cement is more costly than fly ash. In some areas, it is as
much as twice the cost.

So what does EPA say? Their own statement:

One ton of fly ash used as a replacement for cement reduces
the equivalent of nearly 2 months of an automobile's carbon
dioxide emissions.
One ton of fly ash used as a replacement for cement saves
enough energy to provide electricity to an average American
home for nearly 20 days.
Coal ash leads to ``better road performance.''

Mr. Chairman, let's be honest. What we're relating to here is about
the use of fly ash in concrete that's been for over 80 years. Anyone
opposing this legislation clearly has an agenda, and that agenda is
anticoal. So that's why I'm asking my colleagues to join me today in
supporting this amendment, once again, and protecting 316,000 jobs and
maximizing the highway funds available for upgrading our roads and
bridges all across America.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition;
although, I am in support of the amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from West Virginia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. RAHALL. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
President Obama has already threatened to veto this legislation
because it

[[Page H1958]]

circumvents the longstanding process for reviewing the potentially
dangerous Keystone XL pipeline. The McKinley amendment would add
another extraneous provision to the underlying bill. This amendment
would prevent EPA from regulating toxic coal ash and would put our
Nation's drinking water and public health at greater risk.
On December 22, 2008, a coal ash impoundment in Kingston, Tennessee,
burst, releasing 5.4 million cubic yards of toxic sludge, blanketing
the Emory River and surrounding land and creating a Superfund site that
could cost up to $1.2 billion to clean up.
At hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee, we heard testimony
about the devastating impacts contamination from coal combustion wastes
can cause. We learned of contaminated drinking water supplies and
ruined property values. We learned that improper disposal of coal ash
can both present catastrophic risks from ruptures of containment
structures and cause cancer and other illnesses from long-term exposure
to leaking chemicals.
Two years ago, EPA proposed regulations to ensure stronger oversight
of coal ash impoundments in order to prevent disasters like the one at
Kingston and to protect groundwater and drinking water from the threat
of contamination. The agency had proposed two alternatives for
regulating coal combustion residuals. One proposal was to regulate
these wastes under subtitle C of the Resources Conservation Recovery
Act, or RCRA, as a hazardous waste. The other proposal was to regulate
under subtitle D of RCRA as a nonhazardous solid waste.

Under both proposals, there would be a minimum Federal standard
developed to protect human health and the environment. Those standards
would address wet impoundments, like in Kingston, and would also ensure
that basic controls like the use of liners, groundwater monitoring, and
dust control meet a minimum level of effectiveness.
But this amendment blocks both of EPA's proposals. It replaces those
proposals with an ineffective program that will not ensure the safe
disposal of coal ash, won't protect public health, and won't protect
the environment. We could and we should do better.
Under each of our environmental laws, Congress has always established
a legal standard when delegating programs to the States. These
standards are the yardsticks by which it is determined whether a
State's efforts measure up. They ensure a minimum level of effort and
protection throughout the Nation. This approach has worked well because
it prevents a race to the bottom by the States.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. WAXMAN. This legislation does not include any legal standard to
establish a minimum level of safety, and to the extent new safety
requirements are established, nearly all of them can be waived at a
State's discretion.
This legislation appears to create a program, but the decision about
whether or not to go forward is one that will be at the States'
discretion. The result will inevitably be uneven and inconsistent rules
between the States. Some will do a good job and others won't.
If this legislation is adopted, no one should be fooled. This bill
won't protect communities living near these waste disposal sites.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, just a quick couple of observations, just
to remind everyone, we've been using fly ash in concrete for over 80
years, and the President has not--has not--issued a veto threat on this
legislation. Perhaps he's aware of the 316,000 jobs that others are not
as concerned about.
I want to thank my colleague from West Virginia for cosponsoring this
legislation, and I hope he will continue to help us find the bipartisan
support in protecting the jobs.
Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia has 1\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McKINLEY. I'm going to yield time to the gentleman from Michigan,
the chairman of the committee, for the purpose of closing.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 75 seconds.
(Mr. UPTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. UPTON. I would just like to remind the House that this amendment
is the same bill that the House passed last year with a vote of 267
144. We moved this through regular order through our committee
hearings, subcommittee and full committee markup, and I want to say, as
I recall, by nearly a 3 1 margin in the full committee did we pass this
amendment.
This amendment establishes a program that protects human health and
environment. It requires groundwater monitoring and requires that
States monitor for the same constituents that EPA identified as being
important for the regulation of coal ash. The amendment also requires
that States require liners for new structures and establishes
appropriate controls on fugitive dust.
For 2 years, EPA has been considering regulating coal ash. This bill
would allow the safe use of coal ash in such products as concrete,
wallboard, and roofing shingles. As the gentleman from West Virginia
said, it saves 316,000 jobs. This is a highway and infrastructure bill.
It is a jobs bill. This saves American jobs, and it is very important
that the House continue to support the McKinley amendment, whether it
be a freestanding bill, as we did last year, or the amendment to this
bill.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, back in 1980, former Representative Tom
Bevill of Alabama and I inserted an amendment into the Solid Waste
Disposal Act requiring EPA to study and then determine how to regulate
coal ash. That was in 1980. Today, 32 years later, EPA has not done so
in a final manner, so I believe it is completely appropriate to place
this authority within the hands of the State as the pending amendment
by the gentleman from West Virginia would clearly do.
In the wake of the 2008 coal waste disaster at a TVA facility, I
introduced legislation to strengthen the regulation of coal ash
impoundments. The pending legislation is not perfect in these respects.
In fact, there are some flaws which need to be worked out further. I
also believe there are more appropriate ways to gain enactment of the
provisions of H.R. 2273 which this amendment reflects. In fact, we
should all note that the bill has already passed the House and been
sent to the other body where Senators are actually working to achieve a
bipartisan agreement.

{time} 1550

I will, however, vote for this amendment because I have long
supported many of the concepts embodied in it, including active
oversight of coal ash impoundments and the promotion of the beneficial
reuse of coal ash for activities like road building, which my colleague
from West Virginia has already well demonstrated.
So as I conclude, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and
I join in thanking my colleague from West Virginia for bringing it to
us today. And I praise him for his consistency because he came to me
early on in our T&I markup process to have this introduced in
committee.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Ribble

The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the unfinished
business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble) on which further proceedings
were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 255,
noes 165, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 168]

AYES--255

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Austria
Baca
Bachmann

[[Page H1959]]

Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
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
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
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)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
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
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
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
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--165

Ackerman
Amash
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
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
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--11

Andrews
Cardoza
Filner
Flake
Kaptur
Marino
Napolitano
Paul
Pingree (ME)
Rangel
Slaughter

Announcement by the Chair

The CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.

{time} 1618

Mr. BILBRAY and Ms. HAYWORTH changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, on Wednesday, April 18, 2012, I was
absent during rollcall vote No. 168 due to a family medical emergency.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on agreeing to the Ribble
Amendment No. 2.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 168, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
The CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Chaffetz) having assumed the chair, Mr. Westmoreland, Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4348) to
provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor
carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway
Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such
programs, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution
619, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments
adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. POLIS. I am opposed in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Polis moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4348 to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
At the end of subtitle A of title I of the bill, add the
following (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

SEC. 112. PROHIBITION AGAINST CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAYS IN
FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

(a) In General.--None of the funds made available under
this Act may be used for the construction of a highway
outside of a State (as defined in section 101(a) of title 23,
United States Code) or a territory (as defined in section
215(a) of that title).
(b) Removal of Existing Authority to Use Highway Trust Fund
Revenues to Construct a Highway in a Foreign Country.--
(1) Repeal.--Section 218 of title 23, United States Code,
and the item relating to that section in the analysis for
chapter 2 of that title, are repealed.
(2) NHS apportionments.--Section 104(b)(1)(A) of title 23,
United States Code, is amended in the matter preceding clause
(i) by striking ``, $30,000,000'' and all that follows
through ``Highway,''.
(c) Rescission.--Of the unobligated balances of funds made
available for the Alaska Highway under section 104(b)(1)(A)
of title 23, United States Code, $12,289,131 is rescinded.

SEC. 113. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR CORRIDOR EARMARK THAT
LIMITS FUNDING FOR OTHER ARC STATES.

(a) System Mileage.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, any corridor designation that increased the authorized
mileage of the Appalachian development highway system above
3,025 miles shall no longer be effective.
(b) Revision of Cost to Complete Estimate.--Not later than
90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Appalachian Regional Commission shall revise the cost to
complete estimate for the Appalachian development highway
system under section 14501 of title 40, United States Code,
to reflect the elimination of the corridor designation under
subsection (a).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, usually when something is killed, it stays
dead.

[[Page H1960]]

But just like a zombie movie, some earmarks refuse to die and return to
life as wasteful deficit spending. That's what has happened with this
bill and what my simple commonsense amendment corrects.
This Congress was supposed to eliminate earmarks, but zombie earmarks
from prior sessions keep appearing and reappearing and my amendment
corrects that. Republicans are taking earmarks from previous sessions
and calling them something else. Is that our new spending plan? Mr.
Speaker, at a time when we face a massive national deficit and have
limited resources to address our Nation's transportation needs, the
pending measure provides billions of dollars for the construction of
the Alabama Porkway and the Canadian Baconway.
Mr. Speaker, even as many in Congress have sworn off earmarks, this
legislation continues funding to the Alabama Porkway, a 65-mile, six-
lane beltway zombie earmark, a massive highway that surrounds the City
of Birmingham, costing taxpayers billions. In fact, just last year, an
article in the Birmingham News cited how cost estimates have soared
from $3.4 billion to $4.7 billion before construction. So costs have
soared, and now Alabama wants a bailout for their zombie highway, an
earmark and a bailout.
Mr. Speaker, I guess the more Washington changes, the more it stays
the same. The good news is, Mr. Speaker, with this amendment I'm
calling out this bailout and giving Members on both sides of the aisle
the opportunity to stop the bailout of the Alabama Porkway.
In 2004, a Republican Member of Congress added a provision that had
not been included in either the House or the Senate bill behind closed
doors to an appropriations bill adding a new 65-mile, six-lane
Birmingham beltway to the Appalachian Development System. This earmark
is unprecedented in the Appalachian region's more-than-45-year history.
Alabama went from receiving 6.2 percent of highway funds to 25 percent
in one fell swoop. That's good for the Alabama Porkway and those living
high on the hog, but bad for taxpayers everywhere and worthy projects
across Appalachia.
My amendment strikes the windfall bailout and a windfall that comes
at the expense of 12 other States in the Appalachian region. The money
comes directly from projects that would have been funded in Georgia,
Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Even many Alabamans understand that this is a waste of Federal
dollars. If Alabamans want to build a porkway around Birmingham, go
right ahead. Just don't do it with our tax dollars outside of the
normal process while competing for their share of Federal dollars.
Many Alabamans agree. One in the Birmingham News said, ``Spend,
spend, spend. That's the mantra of the Birmingham beltway and State and
local government.'' Another Alabaman says, ``As a businessman, I am
more concerned about the flagrant disregard for the economic damage
that will be wreaked on Alabama in the long term by the beltline.''
The beltline goes right through the farm of 88-year-old Ardell
Turner. She lived her entire life in Alabama. The Northern Beltline
goes right through her farm that she and her husband have had since
1950. This is big Federal deficit spending, a big beltway, a big
porkway right through Ardell's farm.
My amendment also prohibits construction of highways in foreign
countries, which this bill contains.

{time} 1630

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us provides gas tax funds, $30 million a
year, for a 325-mile Canadian baconway right through the Yukon, out of
the pocket of American families and into a Canadian baconway.
The next time my colleagues are at home at a gas station talking to
constituents, I encourage them to ask their constituents if they think
our gas tax dollars should be used to build a 325-mile highway in
Canada or any foreign county.
Now, this isn't an anti-Canada amendment. In fact, I don't think
Mexico or Canada should be building highways through the United States.
What this amendment does is it gives every Member of the House a chance
to decide if we would rather build highways in Canada or reduce our
deficit. Our choice.
If you want to reduce the deficit and make sure there isn't a
precedent for Mexico or Canada building highways through your State,
vote ``yes.'' If you want to engage in more deficit spending to build
expensive highways through the Yukon, vote ``no.''
My amendment would prohibit the use of any funds provided under this
act for construction of highways outside of the United States and
reduce the Federal deficit by over $12 million.
Mr. Speaker, on March 2, 2011, I offered an amendment to stop Federal
taxpayer money from funding the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. Mr. Mica
gave a response to it and said it was smoke and mirrors. He said it's
trying to mislead the House and it's smoke and mirrors.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, this is not smoke and mirrors.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. The House cannot hide behind smoke and mirrors, behind
wasteful pork--from Alabama to the Yukon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. POLIS. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I will be very brief.
The gentleman said that I had said before we had smoke and mirrors,
and once again we have smoke and mirrors. Every opportunity was given
to the other side. My committee sat for some 18 hours. They never
brought this issue up. We heard over 100 Democrat amendments. It was
not brought up in one of the single 200 amendments proposed to the
committee.
What this is is an obstruction to getting people working, to getting
our infrastructure for this country built. We need to vote down this
motion to recommit and let's move forward in getting America building
its infrastructure and getting people to work and affordable energy to
people that can't even afford to fill up their gas tank today. I've had
it with these delays.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.

Point of Order

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point
of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his point of order.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. In the future, when a Member is speaking and
someone asks for order, does the clock stop or does the clock continue
while they're asking for order in the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will respond to the inquiry.
Time spent obtaining order is not charged to the Member under
recognition.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. It is not charged against the speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered; and the motion to
suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2453.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176,
noes 242, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 169]

AYES--176

Ackerman
Altmire
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer

[[Page H1961]]

Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Perlmutter
Peters
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOES--242

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
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
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
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
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
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
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--13

Andrews
Filner
Flake
Honda
Kaptur
Marino
McNerney
Napolitano
Paul
Pelosi
Pingree (ME)
Rangel
Slaughter

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute
remaining.

{time} 1648

Mr. MARCHANT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 169, I was away from the Captiol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 18, 2012, I was
absent during rollcall vote No. 169 due to a family medical emergency.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the motion to
recommit on H.R. 4348--Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012,
Part II.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 293,
noes 127, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 170]

AYES--293

Adams
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Eshoo
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
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)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hahn
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Keating
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Watt
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman

[[Page H1962]]

Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--127

Ackerman
Aderholt
Amash
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Butterfield
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Farr
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Johnson (GA)
Jordan
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Labrador
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Lujan
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pelosi
Peters
Polis
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Reyes
Ross (FL)
Roybal-Allard
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey

NOT VOTING--11

Andrews
Carnahan
Filner
Flake
Kaptur
Marino
Napolitano
Paul
Pingree (ME)
Rangel
Slaughter

{time} 1658

Messrs. SMITH of Washington, SERRANO and HOYER changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. GOSAR, BARTON of Texas, CAMP, AL GREEN of Texas and Ms.
JACKSON LEE of Texas changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 18, 2012, I was
absent during rollcall vote No. 170 due to a family medical emergency.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on final passage on H.R.
4348--Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, Part II.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 170, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''

____________________