[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 60 (Wednesday, April 25, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2099-H2106]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 4348, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 
                     EXTENSION ACT OF 2012, PART II

  Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4348) to provide an extension of 
Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and 
other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment 
of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes, 
with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and 
agree to the conference requested by the Senate.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Rahall moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4348 be instructed 
     to recede from disagreement to the amendment of the Senate.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the long-term authorization of surface transportation 
programs expired on September 30, 2009. Since that time, Congress has 
enacted nine separate Surface Transportation Extension Acts, allowing 
us to continue limping along, patching together our Nation's surface 
transportation system. These short-term, start-and-stop Surface 
Transportation Extension Acts are undermining our surface 
transportation system.
  Running these programs through short-term extensions creates 
tremendous uncertainty among State departments of transportation, 
public transit agencies, and highway and transit contractors that delay 
critical highway and transit projects, costing good-paying jobs each 
step of the way.
  With more than 2.5 million construction and manufacturing workers 
still out of work, it is far past time for Congress to enact surface 
transportation legislation that will remove this uncertainty, create 
and sustain family-wage jobs, and restore our Nation's economic growth.
  That's why I offer this motion today. We have an opportunity before 
us to move quickly to pass legislation that can remove this uncertainty 
and get America back to work.
  Over a month ago, the Senate passed S. 1813, known as MAP 21, by an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 74 22. Now, each of us in this body 
knows how difficult it is for the other body to agree on just about 
anything. But, unlike the House, the Senate was able to come together 
to pass bipartisan legislation that will provide States with the 
certainty that they need to move forward with highway and transit 
projects and get Americans back to work. It is time for the House, 
believe it or not, to follow the other body's lead and pass S. 1813.
  Certainly, S. 1813 is not the exact bill that I would have written. 
However, the Senate bill is a dramatic improvement over what House 
Republicans proposed in their now-dead partisan reauthorization bill 
known as H.R. 7, which was reported by the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, but never acted upon by the full House.
  Last week, in an effort to facilitate a conference with the Senate on 
MAP 21, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4348, another surface 
transportation extension bill. I supported the House passage of H.R. 
4348 as a vehicle to go to conference on the Senate bill.
  I said then--taking Republicans at their word that they are serious 
about moving this process forward--passage of that short-term extension 
bill would allow us to quickly convene a conference with the Senate on 
its bipartisan, multiyear surface transportation reauthorization bill, 
which passed with the support of three-quarters of the other body.
  A long-term bill will provide the certainty that States need to 
invest and proceed with their plans long on the books. It will provide 
the certainty that highway and transit contractors desperately need to 
give them the confidence to hire that one more worker. That is what 
surface transportation is all about, putting Americans back to work and 
sustaining our economic competitiveness.
  If there are issues that we must change, we can address those through 
a technical corrections bill that will make the necessary policy 
changes to improve the bill. That is not unprecedented. We've done it 
before.
  There is nothing to prevent the Congress from enacting S. 1813 and 
then continuing to work to develop further bicameral, bipartisan 
changes to further improve surface transportation programs and 
policies. But American workers should not have to wait any longer as 
Congress searches for agreement. The time for political games is over.
  So my motion is simple, very simple. It instructs House conferees to 
agree to the Senate bill. Enactment of MAP 21 will put in place 18 
months worth of funding, provide state DOTs and public transit agencies 
the certainty they need to advance projects, and provide contractors 
the certainty they need to hire that one more worker. Out-of-work 
Americans simply cannot wait any longer.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
instruct and yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to take a little bit of time to explain to you 
and my colleagues and others who may be listening to this debate about 
what's happening now. The other side of the aisle has just offered a 
motion to instruct, and we're going to conference on an important piece 
of legislation. That's the transportation bill that sets the 
transportation policy for the United States of America.
  For all of our transportation projects, those projects that would be 
eligible, we identify the terms of participation for States and local 
governments and everyone who is going to receive Federal funds for 
transportation projects. So all of that is very important.
  It is important that we put people to work. When I go back home, I 
talk to

[[Page H2100]]

people who lost their house, lost their job, and they want an 
opportunity to work. And you heard that, in fact, there have been nine 
amendments since the bill expired, and six of those extensions were 
passed under the Democrats. I've had to do three.
  They had complete control of the U.S. House of Representatives, the 
United States Senate, and the White House, and still had to pass six 
extensions. Then I learned from our staff that they did not pass a 
single free-standing extension.

                              {time}  1430

  Before we left for Easter, I passed a freestanding extension to get 
us so that we wouldn't close down jobs, that we wouldn't stop 
contracts, that we wouldn't stop people working. Now they're asking us 
to take the Senate carte blanche, a proposal which was adopted by the 
Senate--not a total vote, but it was a bipartisan vote--and just adopt 
it in their motion to instruct.
  Now, Madam Speaker, I just got through explaining the Constitution to 
a wonderful group of young people from the Stetson Baptist Christian 
School in DeLand, Florida, on the steps just a few steps from here--
right out that door and down those steps--and they stood there. I 
explained to them that the Founding Fathers created two Houses. The 
first body that they created, most importantly, the Congress of the 
United States, a legislative branch with a House and, yes, young people 
and teachers and chaperones that were listening, and I said also with 
the Senate.
  They did that because they wanted all of those opinions to come 
together and they wanted us to work, again, in a bipartisan fashion to 
come up with the best possible solution. Yes, they'd operated with 
Articles of Confederation with a unicameral government, but last time I 
checked down the hall, I think if we open those doors and look down 
there, there is the United States Senate, and this is the people's 
House of Representatives.
  I also explained to the students, this is the only body in which the 
Members actually have to be elected. Everybody else can be appointed. 
The Senators can be appointed. The President, actually you could 
replace him by appointment, the Vice President. But the only Federal 
representative that they have is the House of Representatives.
  But what they want to do is cast the participation of the House of 
Representatives aside and just adopt what the Senate has brought 
forward. I tell you that the House has worked hard.
  Now, I didn't have the benefit of 6,300 earmarks, which my 
predecessor had, to pass a bill, so it's taken me a little bit longer, 
and a few days ago we did pass a bill. It wasn't a bill that we passed 
out of committee, H.R. 7, with all the Republican votes but one, and we 
tried to bring to the House. It wasn't the vote that we heard in 
committee for some 18 hours, most of the time consumed not with 
Republican amendments but with Democrat amendments, over a hundred 
Democrat amendments, and I said we're going to sit there as long as it 
takes and give everyone an opportunity to participate in this free and 
open process, which we are doing here. Today they propose closing down 
that free and open process. Let's just adopt what the Senate tossed 
over to us.
  I say ``no,'' and I say ``no'' for a whole host of reasons. The 
Senate proposal is a proposal that will bankrupt the trust fund. The 
Senate proposal is a path to just building paths, to resurfacing, to 
short-term jobs, not answering the call of the people who sent us here 
to make certain that their transportation money, when they go fill up 
their gas tank, pay for 1 gallon of gas, 18.4 cents comes to Washington 
in the trust fund, and we spend it. That's what this sets the policy 
for, what's eligible for receiving those Federal dollars.
  But we'll just forget there's a House of Representatives and cast 
that body aside. I think not.
  I think even an eighth-grader from one of my schools at home can 
figure this out, Madam Speaker, and I just can't agree with this motion 
to recommit.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  In order to respond to the distinguished chairman, that's funny, and 
I appreciate the history lesson he's just given us on legislation in 
this body. It's funny, while you were speaking to students from your 
district, I was just speaking to students from my district outside on 
the Capitol steps as well. They happened to have been from Webster 
Junior High School from Webster Springs, West Virginia.
  I explained to them the process that we're in right now going to 
conference on the transportation bill, how the other body had passed in 
a bipartisan fashion, the other body who can rarely agree on anything, 
including a resolution saying ``I love mother,'' but here they came 
together and passed a bill with 72 votes in a bipartisan fashion. I had 
explained to them briefly what the other body's bill did and what our 
bill did. That's funny. They were all nodding in agreement. They all 
said we ought to accept the Senate bill; go for the Senate bill.
  So I guess the point I'm making is that we all know how this place 
works. We all know the difficulties in getting something through the 
other body where, like it or not, the Framers of our Constitution set 
it up so that the minority in that body has the power.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member on our Highways and Transit 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. In a bitterly divided Congress along partisan lines, I 
think there is one thing we can all agree upon: America is falling 
apart.
  Our Nation's infrastructure, according to two reports from 
commissions that met during the Bush administration when the 
Republicans controlled the House, the White House, and the Senate, came 
to the same conclusion: we are vastly underinvesting in our national 
transportation infrastructure.
  We're not even spending enough to bring the Eisenhower-era 
investments up to a state of good repair: 150,000 bridges need repair 
or replacement; 40 percent of the pavement on the National Highway 
System needs to be substantially rebuilt, not just paved over; and a 
$60 billion to $70 billion backlog on critical capital investments for 
our legacy transit systems across America.
  The good news is, if we make these investments, we'll put millions of 
people to work--and not just construction workers, not just engineers, 
manufacturing steel for the bridges, manufacturing for light railcars, 
for streetcars, first Made in America streetcars in 70 years being 
produced at Oregon Iron Works, and the components sourced from 24 
States in the United States of America.
  We have the strongest buy America requirements in our transportation 
sector, and I hope that we can agree, as we move forward through this 
conference, to strengthen those even more so we don't leak these 
precious tax dollars and jobs overseas like we do in so many other 
ways.
  Now, I understand the reluctance of the majority, and they will 
prevail here today, to say, Let's do the Senate bill now and move on. 
Let's put people back to work starting next week. But I've got to 
caution the majority. They will prevail today, but these temporary 
extensions are costing us jobs. They aren't status quo, let's just 
extend 90 days and 90 days.
  We are getting substantiated reports from the 50 States that they are 
delaying or cancelling transportation investments and projects for this 
construction season because of the uncertainty about Federal funding. 
Time is of the essence here.
  In the northern tier States, we've got to get this bill done before 
we take--well, we've got a break next week, then we're back, I think, 
for 7 legislative days, then we've got a break the next week, then we 
come back for another 7 legislative days, then we've got a 10-day break 
after that.
  We've got to squeeze in a little legislative work between these 
breaks. I believe that if we're determined that we can begin the 
conference as soon as we are appointed, and we could have this done no 
later than May 15 before we begin, two breaks from now, another break. 
So we've got to stop taking breaks and give the American people a break 
and put them back to work. Make the investments they know we need in 
our Nation's infrastructure.
  I urge support for the ranking member's position.

[[Page H2101]]

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee, who also chairs the Highways Subcommittee, 
Mr. Duncan.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. I thank Chairman Mica for yielding me this 
time, and I especially thank him for his long and hard work on this 
legislation. He has raised several points, Chairman Mica has, as to the 
problems that this motion to instruct would cause, so let me just 
mention a few things.
  This motion to instruct conferees to accept the Senate bill in its 
entirety is contrary to the purpose of having a House and Senate 
conference. It is our responsibility to sit down with our Senate 
colleagues and address areas where we have differences of opinion. More 
importantly, the Senate bill includes provisions that many people have 
serious concerns about.
  For example, the Senate bill requires that all new passenger 
vehicles, beginning in 2015, be equipped with an event data recorder. 
These recorders are similar to the black boxes required on airplanes. 
While the intent of this provision is to collect safety information, 
many people think this is a slippery slope that we really don't want to 
go down. Privacy is a big concern for many of my constituents and for 
many people across this country, and this provision, many people feel, 
would cross the line of Federal intrusion into citizens' personal, or 
private, lives.
  There are also other areas where the Senate bill does not go far 
enough. We've talked about environmental streamlining for years, but 
everyone on both sides of the aisle knows we need to really do 
something about that now because other developed nations are doing 
projects in half the time or less than we are. In the last two Federal 
highway studies, one showed it took 13 years and another said it took 
15 years from conception to completion. These are not transcontinental 
highways. These are just relatively short highway projects, and we 
could be doing those in 6 or 7 years.
  The Senate bill does not set hard deadlines for Federal agencies to 
approve projects, so they can be delayed and delayed and delayed. It 
does not allow State environmental laws to be used in place of Federal 
environmental laws. There are some States in which the State laws are 
better. The Senate bill does not expand the list of projects that 
qualify for categorical exclusions. The Senate bill does not expedite 
projects that are being rebuilt due to a disaster, such as the bridge 
on Interstate 35 in Minnesota, which was done so quickly to everybody's 
great relief. These are issues not addressed in the Senate bill, issues 
which could be addressed in the conference. There are also many other 
issues that Chairman Mica has pointed out.
  Let me just say that much of the highway bill that the House has 
produced came from the other side. I understand there were hundreds of 
letters from Democratic Members and that 60 percent of what was 
requested in those letters was done by the committee staff. Then there 
were over 100 amendments.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MICA. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. We started our markup at, I think, 9 o'clock 
in the morning, and we went until about 3 o'clock the next morning. We 
addressed over 100 amendments that were submitted by Democratic 
Members, and I think over 20 of them were put into the bill. So many 
things were put in by the other side before the bill ever was marked 
up, and then during the markup. Now we're supposed to do away with all 
of that and just go with the Senate bill, but I don't think that's the 
way we should do it. I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Railroads, the gentlelady from 
Florida, Ms. Corrine Brown.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I thank the Members of the House.
  Madam Speaker, let me just say, in having served on the committee for 
19 years, it is the House bill I am very disappointed with. Secretary 
LaHood stated it best: it's the worst bill he has seen in 35 years. Of 
course, it's the worst bill I've ever seen. I sat through that markup 
from 9 o'clock in the morning until 3 o'clock in the morning, and it 
was a nightmare, since many of the proposals dismantle transportation.
  I can truly say that people come to this floor often raving against 
the Senate. I now say thank God for the United States Senate because 
they have come up with a commonsense bill that we can fund and pass--
and go home. It's a bill that would fund transportation and really put 
about 2 million people to work. We have many projects in the Florida 
area that could benefit from our passing comprehensive transportation, 
but more than that, we have such a high unemployment rate in Florida--
9 percent--that every $1 billion we spend in transportation will 
generate 44,000 permanent jobs.

  In talking about rules and regulations, visiting us today in the 
Capitol is the Hawk family, whose daughter was killed because of 
pollution. When we talk about regulations, surely we've got to strike a 
balance. We have regulations for a purpose. When we raise our hand to 
defend and protect the public, we're talking about the Constitution, 
but we also have a responsibility to make sure that we protect the 
public and have a balanced approach and not destroy all of the 
regulations pertaining to the environment, which is what the House bill 
did in the markup.
  We can go on and on, but let me just tell you as I close that you can 
fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the 
people all of the time. Pass the Senate bill.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a 
gentleman who has authored one of the major amendments to the 
legislation that passed, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble).
  Mr. RIBBLE. I am struck here this afternoon. I've heard my good 
friends on the other side of the aisle and their concerns. I think it's 
legitimate that they would like to see long-term certainty in our 
infrastructure system. Yet, when the highway bill ended in 2009, they 
controlled the White House, the House of Representatives and the U.S. 
Senate. While in the majority of all three levels of government, they 
chose to extend the transportation authorization six times. So here we 
are, once again, with another delay tactic, letting the American people 
wait some more. They know that this motion to instruct is not going to 
go anywhere because there are important reforms that the American 
people have told us they want.
  One of those reforms is my amendment, which is part of our bill that 
streamlines the redtape. Why in the world should we take 15 years to 
get a highway project finished? It's because we're waiting two-thirds 
of the time to get approvals done. It's nonsensical, yet we keep on 
promulgating the same problem over and over and over again. It's like 
Groundhog Day here. I have to tell you, Madam Speaker, it gets 
frustrating after a while.
  We need to get on with this and move forward with something. Let's 
get this into conference so that we can go ahead and make our reforms. 
The American people have spoken. They spoke in the last election. They 
decided that they wanted a split government, that they wanted the 
majority over here in the House and a different majority in the Senate. 
That was their choice. The way a bill becomes law is that the Senate 
does its thing and then we do our thing, and then we come together and 
negotiate in between to find the best common ground for all Americans. 
That's what we plan on doing here.
  I very strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion to 
instruct. Let us get to conference with our reforms and with the House-
passed legislation, the bipartisan House-passed legislation. Let's get 
on with it so that we can get some certainty put back into this.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Texas, a valued member of our committee, Ms. Eddie 
Bernice Johnson.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Let me thank my ranking member 
and chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  I rise in support of the provisions included in the Senate version of 
the reauthorization. It was my hope that we

[[Page H2102]]

would have a longer-term bill, one that would reauthorize surface 
transportation, transit, and rail provisions for several years. I 
support the Senate version because it will provide certainty to the 
State departments of transportation, to transit agencies, and to 
contractors, which will help create and sustain jobs for out-of-work 
Americans.

                              {time}  1450

  Most of the roads and bridges in this country are in serious 
disrepair, and States and municipalities are unable to address these 
needs with piecemeal extensions.
  The Senate bill preserves transit funding and continues funding major 
transit programs from the highway trust fund. I was very concerned with 
the elimination of transit funding included in the House version. 
Transit funds are essential to both urban and rural areas by providing 
alternative transportation, easing congestion, and reducing emissions. 
In addition, I support the expansion of the TIFIA program to $1 billion 
annually, and the modifications that make it easier for public 
transportation agencies with dedicated revenue sources to apply for 
TIFIA loans.
  Madam Speaker, we are currently operating under the ninth extension 
of SAFETEA LU. This really is unacceptable, and we owe it to the 
American people to address our crumbling infrastructure and to get them 
back to work.
  I voted for the most recent extension of SAFETEA LU, but for the 
purpose of getting to where we are now, so we could get to conference 
and consider the Senate amendment to H.R. 4348 in conference. I implore 
my colleagues to support the instructions to put the Senate 
transportation bill before us in conference so that we can bring it to 
the floor.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to one of the outstanding 
new members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).
  Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this motion to instruct. 
The House needs to conference with the Senate and craft a long-term 
highway bill.
  In MAP 21, the Senate bill, there is a provision that was offered by 
Senator Bingaman that provided disincentive to States and cities to 
consider partnering with the private sector for fear of losing a 
percentage of its Federal funding. This is only one of the many 
problems I have with the Senate bill.
  In my State of Indiana, Governor Daniels made the bold move to enter 
into a public-private partnership for the Indiana toll road. Indiana 
received over $4 billion up front for the lease of this road. When the 
Governor announced this public-private partnership, Members of this 
body were critical of the decision, and some even claimed that it would 
never work.
  Not only has it been successful for the Indiana toll road, but it has 
also resulted in over $6.5 billion invested in infrastructure projects 
throughout Indiana. After 30 years of planning, Interstate 69 in my 
district is being built connecting Evansville, the third largest city 
in the State, to Annapolis.
  The Indiana toll road is a perfect example of how business and 
government can work together to address America's infrastructure needs. 
The Bingaman amendment ignores these types of successes, and rather 
than rewarding, States are putting the American taxpayer first and 
pursuing alternative funding for roads. It will punish a State and take 
away portions of their Federal funding. Under the Bingaman amendment, 
Indiana would lose $72 million. Nevada, I should point out, will lose 
$66 million.
  In these challenging fiscal times, public-private partnerships 
represent an exciting option to many States to better leverage their 
Federal transportation dollars. Congress should take positive steps to 
encourage innovative financing strategies like public-private 
partnerships rather than penalizing them. The only way to fully address 
our Nation's infrastructure needs is to involve the private sector. The 
Federal Government can't do everything.

                                    Building America's Future,

                                                   April 16, 2012.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     The Capitol, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: In order 
     to remain economically competitive, the United States must 
     have a modern 21st century transportation system. Goods must 
     move efficiently to market and people must reliably get from 
     their homes to their jobs or schools.
       However, as you are keenly aware, transportation-funding 
     shortfalls are increasing at all levels of government, and 
     traditional funding sources are no longer keeping pace with 
     rapidly growing needs. As a result, states and cities have 
     had to increasingly look to innovative solutions, such as 
     partnering with the private sector (where appropriate) in an 
     effort to modernize their transportation networks. Now is 
     surely not the time to restrict the ability of states and 
     cities to innovate.
       Yet, that is precisely what happened with the inclusion of 
     several harmful provisions in the Senate's transportation 
     bill (MAP 21). We are particularly concerned about language 
     that provides a disincentive to states and cities to consider 
     partnering with the private sector for fear of losing a 
     percentage of its federal funding; eliminates the option to 
     use Private Activity Bonds (PABs) to finance leased highway 
     projects; and changes the depreciation timetable for longterm 
     highway leases from 15 years to 45. Taken together or 
     individually, these provisions would have a chilling effect 
     upon future private investment in infrastructure, perhaps 
     even bringing it to a complete halt.
       As the House continues to work on its multi-year 
     transportation bill, we urge you not to include any 
     provisions that would make it more difficult for states and 
     cities to continue to innovate and partner with the private 
     sector. In order to address our nation's enormous 
     transportation needs, states must rely on a variety of 
     options to fund and finance those needs. At a time when 
     federal funds are increasingly limited but needs are growing 
     exponentially, the last thing Congress should do is tie the 
     hands of governors and mayors by limiting the options 
     available to them.
       Public private partnerships are not the solution to every 
     state's transportation funding challenges, but they are 
     certainly a piece of the solution.
       Our own experience with public private partnerships in 
     infrastructure investment convinces us that the private 
     sector is looking for such long term stable investments and 
     that these partnerships must be a viable option for helping 
     to fund our transportation needs.
       We urge you to protect the ability of states seeking 
     creative solutions to transportation funding challenges, 
     rather than creating roadblocks to leveraging state dollars 
     with private investment.
           Sincerely,
     Michael R. Bloomberg,
       Mayor, City of New York.
     Ed Rendell,
       Former Governor, State of Pennsylvania.
     Mitch Daniels,
       Govenor, State of Indiana.

  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
ranking member on the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank Mr. Rahall for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the motion to instruct 
conferees. This motion would direct conferees to adopt the Senate bill, 
MAP 21, which I introduced as H.R. 14 in March. This legislation can 
provide State DOTs, transit agencies, and contractors with the 
certainty they need to create and sustain jobs for the thousands of 
Americans who are still out of work as a result of the economic 
downturn.
  MAP 21 not only passed overwhelmingly in the Senate with a bipartisan 
majority of 74 22, but the Senate bill is fully paid for and will save 
an estimated 1.8 million jobs and create up to 1 million additional 
jobs when implemented. During a weak economic recovery looking for a 
jump-start, this is precisely what we need to do.
  Given that H.R. 4348 is merely a 90-day extension of highway programs 
at current levels with a few policy additions, we could put the 
construction industry back to work that much faster, given that the 
construction season is in full swing if this motion to instruct is 
adopted.
  MAP 21 has the support of three-quarters of Congress, Senate 
Democrats, Senate Republicans, House Democrats; it has the support of 
the White House. It's time that the House Republicans got on board with 
job creation instead of fighting it. Americans

[[Page H2103]]

want safe roads and bridges; but, above all, they want jobs.
  The Senate passed the biggest job-creating bill in this Congress by 
an overwhelming bipartisan margin. The House has done nothing. Let's 
get this country moving again by passing the Senate bill so the 
President can sign it. Let's create jobs. Let's Make It in America.
  I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. MICA. I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the chair of the Rail 
Subcommittee, the distinguished member of our Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. I just want to remind my colleague from New York, as he 
is walking off the floor, that it was the Democratic-controlled 
Congress that was unable to pass a transportation bill when they had 
control of this body for the past couple of years.
  Today, I come to the floor in opposition to the motion to instruct; 
and, quite frankly, I'm surprised, I'm shocked, I'm stunned that my 
colleagues on the other side are willing to take up a Senate bill which 
is a bad bill and, in fact, there's a couple of provisions in there 
that I would think the ranking member of the full committee and the 
ranking member of the Railroad Subcommittee would embrace. There is a 
coal ash provision in there which is going to be good for coal in West 
Virginia, so that is something I would hope that we would embrace going 
to conference, to come out and save those jobs in West Virginia, create 
more jobs.
  Then, of course, the gentlelady from Florida, she embraces the Senate 
bill, which is going to be a disincentive for private money. It's my 
understanding that Florida is a leader when it comes to working with 
the private sector to build infrastructure. Why in the world would we 
want to have a disincentive out there for public-private partnerships 
when Florida will benefit mightily from it? Again, as I said, I'm 
stunned that we're standing here today with this motion to instruct.
  The Senate bill fails to make real reforms, continues the 
transportation enhancement and safety routes, the school programs that 
mandate bike paths and roadside flowers and ``walking school bus'' 
programs. You would think that the people in Pennsylvania, Florida or 
West Virginia didn't love their kids enough that they wouldn't be able 
to instruct them on their own how to go to school safely.
  Also, the people in Pennsylvania, we need to spend that money--not on 
bike paths, although I love bike paths, I have got a few of them in my 
district--but the time we face today should be focused on repairing 
those bridges when Pennsylvania has over 5,000 bridges that are in 
desperate need of repair. Again, the Senate bill continues to mandate 
that they hire a bike/pedestrian coordinator and a Safe Routes to 
School coordinator. Like I said, those are things I don't believe 
belong in this bill.
  Further, the Senate bill fails, or it creates, actually, a national 
freight program adding to bureaucracy at PennDOT. The new freight 
program allows States to use up to 10 percent of their appropriated 
funds for freight rail projects, which means less money for highways 
and bridges. I'm an advocate for rail in this country. I don't believe 
that Class I's would want anything to do with this because every time 
they have got involved with Federal money, it takes a lot longer and 
it's a lot more expensive. I don't even believe that the Class I's 
would embrace a program like this that the Senate is putting forward 
out there. The Federal regulatory provisions for passenger rail 
providers include rail authorities that are intended to stifle 
competition. Once again, there's private sector initiatives going on 
all over this country when it's coming to commuter rail.
  Another thing, positive train controls, the Senate doesn't push that 
back. We found the technology is not there; it's not right. We don't 
have it. You can't use alternative forms of safety devices when it 
comes to positive train control.
  In addition to that, in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and 
Delaware, SEPTA, they are going to have to spend half of their capital 
money, half of their capital dollars, to put positive train control in 
place. This is going to cause even the trains in New Jersey and the 
Philadelphia area to be less safe because they are not going to be 
spending on fixing their rolling stock and rehabilitating their rail 
lines.

                              {time}  1500

  So this bill, again, falls far short of any kind of reforms we need, 
as well as the Railroad Rehabilitation Improvement Financing fund, 
which is a loan program to tap into $35 billion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MICA. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Now, that's the kind of reform we need to see, not 
forcing States to spend 10 percent in freight rail projects, but let's 
let them tap into this RRIF loan program and make it easier.
  The way our bill and our reforms are, it would make it much easier 
for the Class I's, and especially the short lines, to be able to invest 
those dollars at low interest rates and improve the freight rail system 
in this country.
  Again, I'm stunned that my colleagues wouldn't support these what I 
consider to be groundbreaking reforms that will allow us to spend more 
money on building roads and bridges.
  With that, I urge a rejection of this motion to instruct.
  Mr. RAHALL. May I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has 16 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida has 12\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. RAHALL. I have the right to close debate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to one of 
our star new members of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hanna).
  Mr. HANNA. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
  I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct.
  The House has developed some of the strongest policy reforms in 
decades. I, for one, am not ready to give them up. I thank Chairman 
Mica in particular for his leadership to streamline project delivery. 
It shouldn't take 15 years to finish a project. Our bill streamlines 
the permitting process so that they can be done concurrently, instead 
of consecutively. This is good policy and something worth fighting for. 
We can cut this time in half--and we should.
  I also worked on two other provisions that simply aren't addressed in 
the Senate bill:
  One addressed the use of engineering services. Specifically, it calls 
for States to utilize private sector engineering firms to the maximum 
extent possibility. State DOTs should streamline their operations and 
reduce overhead so more money is going to put shovels in the ground, 
not to bureaucracy.
  The second provision would create regional planning organizations to 
give small communities a seat at the table, which is something they 
don't have now. The rural areas I represent face stiff competition for 
limited Federal dollars, and they deserve their fair share. But this 
reform, too, is absent from the Senate bill.
  Let's work with the Senate to get these and other good ideas from 
both sides included in a final bill. Madam Speaker, we should embrace 
this process to make a positive impact on the Senate bill.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to instruct.
  Mr. RAHALL. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to one of 
the senior members of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  What's interesting about the debate is, if the Senate bill is good, 
you're going to appoint conferees, argue for the Senate side--you don't 
have to introduce a bill here in the House--and expect us to accept it 
when we haven't read it, we haven't debated it. It came to the floor 
without any discussion on our side. So when we go to conference, if you 
like the Senate provisions, if you

[[Page H2104]]

like a 2-year bill when we're going to fight for a 5-year bill, you're 
welcome to ask for that.
  But there are some things in the Senate bill that really bother me. 
You had the Senate side say and guarantee there were no earmarks in 
this bill. Well, if you look at what Senator Reid has done, in the 2005 
SAFETEA LU, the House put out a $45 million request for a project that 
was considered a legal earmark at that point in time. What Mr. Reid has 
done is he has reappropriated that project to a $45 million project 
near the Las Vegas airport.
  Now, it's nice that the Senate wants to make promises, but actions 
speak a lot louder than words. And when the actions of the bill state 
clearly that $45 million of House money authorized in 2005 is being 
transferred to a project in Las Vegas in a bill--and it's 2012--
something inappropriate about that promise seems to occur.
  I really appreciate the chairman putting language in our original 
bill on environmental streamlining. I think he did a great job on this. 
But when I wrote the bill, the language was very clear on what we were 
trying to do.
  In 2005, authored language in TEA LU said if a State has an 
environmental process that meets or exceeds Federal environmental law, 
they don't have to go through a duplicative process, and it allowed 
five States the opportunity to participate in that. But one State took 
advantage of that: the State of California. To this date, it's saving 
17 months on process time--just application--and it's saving 30 months 
on delivery time.
  What we tried to do in the House bill was the same thing. We're 
saying: Allow environmental reciprocity. But we want to go beyond that. 
We want to say not only should States be allowed to do that, but allow 
local municipalities and counties to do the same thing. They can save 
17 months on process, 30 months on delivery. Today, time equals 
dollars. Plus, if you can create the projects today, we're going to 
move the economy forward in a positive direction and create some jobs.
  But there's other things we need to do.
  Receiving grants: Current law says that if a State or municipality 
applies for a Federal grant, they can't start the project until the 
grant money is received by the municipality or the agency. What we've 
done is say that once you have been approved for the grant, if you want 
to start the project, now start the project and you can reimburse 
yourself when the grant funds come in. You might save 12 months alone 
waiting for a grant to come in from the Federal Government; whereby, 
you can start today using local agency funds or State funds and get 
your money back when this money comes in from the grant project.
  We need to establish some certainty on when you can start a project. 
The problem we have is, when applications are made to the Federal 
Government for a process for approval, it goes through an uncertain 
time process where they can delay and delay and delay. We've said, 
thanks to the chairman, that there's a date certain. Now the Federal 
Government has to respond by a date and has to approve it by a date.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MICA. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I think Chairman Mica did a great job putting the language into the 
bill, because it says you have to know when you can do something based 
on the Federal process and it sets a deadline for the Federal 
bureaucrats to get their job done.
  Now, it seems like local governments and State governments are 
rapidly wanting to do things and the Federal Government drags its 
heels, requiring them to delay until they get final approval. We're 
saying, no, let's set a date for the Federal bureaucracy to approve a 
project--and I know you agree with this issue on your side--to let the 
construction projects go forward and make sure bureaucrats do their 
job. I approve what Chairman Mica is willing to do and wants to do 
here.
  Mr. RAHALL. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, at this time I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I started out talking about how it's important for the legislative 
process to properly be fulfilled under the terms of the Constitution 
and separation of responsibilities in the legislative body. This 
motion, of course, would close all of that down. We'd accept what the 
Senate has done without all of the work many Members have put into it. 
And I didn't go to Webster Springs, but I did go to Beckley, West 
Virginia, where we held the first meeting to allow the other side of 
the aisle to present at the very first of these deliberations their 
viewpoint and their recommendations for trying to pass a long-term 
transportation bill.
  We took many of those--as you heard, 60 percent of the 
recommendations form the other side. We took 100 amendments, considered 
them, and passed 20 during 18 hours of marking up and considering the 
bill. So we've tried to make this a bipartisan process and a full 
process that everyone gets to participate in. But now they're here 
telling us that we don't want the House to participate any further, and 
just take the Senate bill and go along.

                              {time}  1510

  Now they, of course, passed six extensions, short term, keeping 
things in turmoil during--I think we calculated about 14 months. I've 
had to do three in about the same period of time. The difference is, I 
didn't have 6,300 earmarks, I didn't control the other body or that 
house downtown, what do they call it? The White House. But they 
controlled them all, all the branches, and they couldn't git 'er done.
  So, the Senate bill does not set a threshold on some of these 
environmental approvals that tie us up. And no one wants to step over 
any good environmental provisions. What we want to do is shorten a 
little bit the time that these things go under consideration. They go 
on and on. You heard Mr. Ribble talk: 15 years to approve some of the 
projects in his district, 7 years on average for simple processing if 
the Federal Government gets involved. And we keep repeating the same 
thing. You heard the speaker say it's like Groundhog Day around here, 
and we've got to stop the Groundhog Day, and we could do that by having 
the House provisions adopted.
  There are a whole host of things wrong with the Senate bill, and I 
won't get into them. And I know it's been a bumpy road to get here. 
I've told folks that when I became chairman--and I think the ranking 
member, when he became ranking member, neither of us was handed an 
operating manual. So this has been a bumpy road to get here, and it is 
a difficult process, but we tried to include everyone in that process 
and come up with the best suggestions and recommendations.
  Mr. Ribble's amendment, which is to streamline provisions of H.R. 7, 
is excellent. Well, we'll get more for less, and we can do it 
responsibly. Mr. Boustany from Louisiana's amendment getting the 
Highway Maintenance Trust Fund to get funds that are collected for 
improvement of the ports--actually they improve our ports that are so 
important to infrastructure. So there are many good provisions in our 
legislation. It's not what I would have exactly crafted or passed in 
the very beginning or brought out here, but it is a vehicle so that 
everybody can have consideration who has participated in this process.
  So I submit to you, although it's been a bumpy road with some twists 
and turns--we didn't expect that the Senate bill is a path to fewer 
jobs; it's a path to fewer projects actually getting done. It's a path 
to build only paths, if you want to look at it that way. Unfortunately, 
it's also a path to a dead end for transportation.
  So, I submit, Madam Speaker, that we take a different road, that we 
take a road to where we'll have more jobs. We could do more with less, 
and we can, I think, do a lot more for the American people in a very 
difficult time in our history in moving this great country forward and 
building our infrastructure.
  With that, I'll yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, as I said in my opening comments, the Senate bill, MAP 
21, is not the perfect bill. It's not the bill I would have written had 
I had

[[Page H2105]]

my druthers. And yet I hear several of my colleagues on the other side 
saying how stunned they are that I am not for the House bill and that I 
would be here offering a motion to accept, carte blanche, the other 
body's bill.
  I'm sure those Members know how this process works, and before I just 
give them a brief lesson on that, let me repeat my words again from my 
opening comments: that the other body's bill is not perfect. If there 
are issues that we must change, we can address those through a 
technical corrections bill that will make the necessary policy changes 
to improve the bill. This is not unprecedented. We have done it before, 
I would say to my stunned colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  So there is nothing to prevent Congress from enacting S. 1813 and 
then continuing to work to develop further bicameral, bipartisan 
changes to further improve our surface transportation programs and 
policies. But the bottom line here, the bottom line here is that our 
American workers should not have to wait any longer as Congress 
searches for an agreement. The time for political games, the time for 
adding stuff to score political points, is over.
  I would say, in addition, to my distinguished chairman from Florida, 
he appears to blame part of his problems, headaches, and troubles on 
his side of the aisle on the fact that we no longer have what are known 
as earmarks. Now, it seems to me his suggestion is that we reinstate 
that process known as earmarks whereby we, in this body, if it's so 
concerned about Members of the House having a say and doing our 
constitutional jobs, where we would have a legitimate input into the 
making of transportation policy by deciding those local projects that 
are best for our people, rather than leaving them to bureaucracies or 
to Presidents of the United States, regardless of who occupies that 
office.
  So, last week, I asked my colleague to join me in a bipartisan manner 
in writing a letter, which he kindly agreed, to the Speaker urging an 
expeditious naming of conferees, which we've now done. That was a 
bipartisan letter signed by the big four in our committee. I would now 
ask him, again, in the spirit of bipartisanship, and I will yield him 
time if he's prepared to answer my question yes or no--yes or no--if he 
will join me in a bipartisan letter to the Speaker asking for the 
reinstatement of earmarks. Yes or no?
  Mr. MICA. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RAHALL. Yes, I'll yield.
  Mr. MICA. I have to be a little bit more verbose. Would you allow me 
additional time?
  Mr. RAHALL. I'll grant you 1 minute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 minute.
  Mr. MICA. When I took over as ranking member and we had sort of a 
rank way in which earmarks were done, I cleaned up the process. I think 
earmarks, there can be bad legislative earmarks and bad administrative 
earmarks. When they're done behind closed doors, they're not properly 
vetted, they're not transparent, and they haven't had the sunshine, the 
antiseptic sunshine to let people know what's going on and they're not 
a worthwhile project that has true support, they shouldn't be 
considered, whether by the administration or legislatively. I think 
that we have a moratorium now, and I'd like to see a different way to 
present those requests. I think fundamentally under Article I of the 
Constitution, I think it's section 2, we should, as the House of 
Representatives, and we do earmark, even if we just put one line in 
that says that we'll turn all this money and responsibility over to the 
administration--that is an earmark. But we can do, and we should do 
better.
  Mr. RAHALL. I appreciate the gentleman's response. Perhaps we ought 
to start drafting such a letter and see how far we get.
  But let me conclude my part of the debate here, Madam Speaker, by 
reiterating what my motion is. It's simple, it's pure, it's clean, and 
it's straightforward. It instructs our conferees that we are appointing 
today to agree to the Senate bill.
  That bill, known as MAP 21, provides a total of $109 billion in 
funding for fiscal years '12 and '13 for Federal highway, highway 
safety, and public transportation programs.
  Among its other features, it continues current funding levels, it 
sustains approximately 1.9 million jobs on an annual basis, it provides 
continued dedicated financing for public transit from the highway trust 
fund--no more ``go fish'' with general appropriators on a yearly basis 
for our transit agencies. It continues and expands upon provisions 
developed during the last Surface Transportation Act to expedite 
project delivery without gutting environmental protections or limiting 
public participation.
  I fear if you do either of the last two, you're only going to prolong 
the process through court battles because there will be court 
challenges that will go on beyond any approval process of the 
bureaucracy that may exist today.
  The Senate bill also strengthens Buy America requirements that apply 
to Federal highway, transit, and rail capital projects by prohibiting 
the segmentation of such projects in order to avoid Buy America 
requirements. It ensures that the Department of Transportation 
periodically review existing nationwide waivers applicable to highway 
and rail projects. It requires DOT to justify any proposed waiver of 
the Buy America requirements, and it ensures that the American public 
has notice of an opportunity to comment on any proposed waiver prior to 
taking effect.
  Finally, MAP 21's bipartisan financing package fully pays for the 
bill--fully pays for the bill, fully pays for the bill--by providing 
approximately $9.6 billion in new revenues into the highway trust fund.

                              {time}  1520

  This amount will fully pay for highway, transit, and highway safety 
programs authorized by the bill, and it will allow DOT to maintain a 
positive balance in both the highway and transit accounts of the 
highway trust fund at the end of the bill.
  The bipartisan offsets do not add to the deficit because the general 
fund of the Treasury is also made whole for every dollar that's 
transferred into the highway trust fund.
  So as I conclude, let me say that for these reasons I urge adoption 
of this motion.
  Mr. MICA. Will the gentleman yield for one question?
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. Last week, I think it was, you had come to the floor and 
asked me to sign a letter to the Speaker to appoint conferees and to go 
to conference. That's correct?
  Mr. RAHALL. Correct.
  Mr. MICA. And then we signed that and we sent it to the Speaker. It 
has gone to the Speaker. So now we're doing that, and now you're asking 
me to go to conference and roll over and play dead?
  Mr. RAHALL. No, I'm not asking you to roll over and play dead. I'm 
saying that we ought to go to conference, accept the Senate bill. We 
can come back, as I've said now for the third or fourth time, and enact 
a technical corrections bill if there is something that we see in there 
that is drastically bad.
  Mr. MICA. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. MICA. I thought this motion to recommit was to accept the Senate 
position. So we're getting it to conference. Didn't I pass a motion to 
go to conference? So now what? You're asking me to just, okay, 
surrender, it's all over?
  Mr. RAHALL. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I've said many times 
during this debate that that's not the position of this gentleman that 
we roll over and play dead to the other body. I've said the other body 
is not the perfect bill. I've said that there are technical corrections 
we can change once we get a conference underway. Once we pass a 
conference committee bill, we can come back and make technical changes. 
That's not unprecedented in this body.
  The important point here to remember is: no longer can we play these 
political games; no longer can we add extraneous stuff on a jobs bill 
such as this transportation bill to score political points for a 
certain wing of our party.
  What we need to do, and the American people are demanding, this is 
the time that contracts are let for work--

[[Page H2106]]

not 90 days from now, not 180 days from now. This is springtime. This 
is time when the highway projects are let, and the American worker is 
waiting to know whether he or she will have a job this summer.
  That's why I think every move should be made to get to conference 
expeditiously, to have that conference conclude its work and bring a 
bill back for both Houses of Congress to enact in order to provide that 
certainty to the American small businesses, to the American economy, to 
the American worker that he or she will have a job this summer. And 
that certainty should not wait around for us to decide whether we're 
going to roll over and play dead or not. That bill can be corrected, as 
we've done numerous times in this body, through technical changes once 
we have given that certainty to the American worker and to the American 
people.
  It's for that reason that I urge that the House today approve this 
motion to instruct conferees as we go to conference on the 
transportation bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  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.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________