[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 93 (Tuesday, June 19, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3788-H3794]
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. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I have a previous noticed motion 
at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Walz of Minnesota 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 resolve all issues and file a conference 
     report not later than June 22, 2012.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz) and the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Duncan) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for being here. I know 
his commitment to building infrastructure in this Nation is 
unquestioned. He's been a good friend and a gentleman on the committee.
  I think what we're here for today, Mr. Speaker, is the American 
people deserve better from us. We have a need in this country that is 
obvious to everyone. The infrastructure in this country is crumbling: 
70,000 deficient bridges; nearly half our highways in disrepair. And 
being a Member from Minnesota, that hot August day almost 5 years ago 
when the I 35W bridge fell into the Mississippi River is a stark 
testament of what we can do.
  The Transportation Committee, by command of the Constitution, if you 
will, has always been there to build the post roads. This Nation has 
built canals, locks, dams, and ports. We've built railroads that 
connected the continent and spurred the industrial revolution. We've 
built an interstate highway system that made the American economy the 
envy of the world. We have possessed vision, we've possessed willpower, 
and we've done it in a manner that incorporated bipartisan support and, 
at the end of the day, compromise.
  The last bill that passed, SAFETEA-LU, passed by a vote in this House 
in 2005 of 412 8; in the Senate, 91 4. The previous bill, 2007, 297 86, 
and 88 5 in the Senate. In 1991, 372 47; the Senate, 79 8. In 1987, 
over the last 25 years, 350 73. We have the will. We simply need to 
exercise the political willpower to move this piece of legislation.
  So this motion to instruct is very simple. A hundred days ago, the 
Senate passed their version. It received a vote of 74 22. It is a 
bipartisan bill.
  Now, I will be the first to tell you the prerogative of the House to 
lead is sacred to us here. We need to have a say in this. We need to 
make sure that the people's House has their voice in things. The 
problem we have is we've been sitting in conference committee for 45 
days with a deadlock and no end in sight.
  So this motion to instruct, yes, it's a nonbinding sense of the 
House, but I would argue it's far more than that. This is a sense of 
the American public. They sent us here to do some basic work. They did 
not send us here to agree with each other on everything, but they did 
have that understanding that the glue that binds the Nation together is 
compromise. And there are a very few things that historically have been 
bipartisan. The transportation bill has been one of those.
  So what this MTI asks is: rectify the differences and compromise to 
the point that we can get something on the floor and finish the work by 
June 22, this Friday. Then give us the opportunity to exercise the 
American will by having their Representatives discuss what needs to be 
there. If we can't come to a compromise, bring us the Senate bill and 
let's have the up-or-down vote. If it passes, we can move forward. If 
it doesn't, then we start and go on from there. But I have to tell you, 
we can't afford to kick this can down the road--and I would say the 
proverbial ``crumbling road.''
  The Chamber of Commerce has made the case:
  Failure to keep up with infrastructure needs in the U.S. cost this 
economy $2 trillion between 2008 and 2009.
  Every year we do nothing, we spend over $100 billion on idling tax. 
We waste 1.9 billion gallons of fuel yearly. That's 5 percent of our 
fuel needs. That's money going to foreign countries who hate us. 
They'll hate us for free. We can be more efficient. We cannot waste 
Americans' hard-earned dollars staring at the bumper in front of them. 
We can do it safely, and we can move our products to market faster; and 
we have that power.
  I said it this morning. I'll continue to say it. Up above the 
Speaker's chair up there is the quote from Daniel Webster. How about we 
do something worthy to be remembered for. How about we come together 
and pass a bill that the people say, They did the peoples' work. They 
compromised.
  It's not about getting what each of us wants. It's about getting what 
the American public needs.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind words from the 
gentleman from Minnesota. He is correct in that I am very much 
committed to trying to produce and pass a good transportation bill in 
this Congress. When the gentleman's party was in control of the House 
and the Senate and the White House a couple of years ago, they 
couldn't, for various reasons, pass the bill. And I certainly hope we 
can in this Congress.
  For the past 3\1/2\ years, about half the time when I've come to the 
floor I've had some Members on both sides come up to me and say, When 
are we going to pass a highway bill? And this is my 24th year in this 
body and I have been involved actively with all of those bills that the 
gentleman from Minnesota mentioned, all of which passed by overwhelming 
margins. And as he said, the last highway bill that was passed in 2005 
passed with only 8 votes in opposition.
  I agree and I think all of the people on our side of the aisle agree 
in principle with Mr. Walz's motion to instruct. We should focus our 
efforts on completing the conference report and delivering a bill to 
the President's desk before the surface transportation programs expire 
at the end of this month. Unfortunately, up until this moment, the 
Senate has not shown a sufficient willingness to address the House's 
top four priorities: streamlining project delivery; program 
consolidation; State funding flexibility; and equitable funding 
formulas not based on past earmarks.
  When the average transportation project, Mr. Speaker, takes 15 years 
to complete, I cannot help but think there's something wrong with the 
current system. And as the gentleman from Minnesota mentioned, when the 
will is there, these projects can be completed in record time, such as 
the I 35 bridge in Minnesota after it collapsed.
  Bureaucratic red tape is the main culprit, and much more must be done 
in the reauthorization bill to accelerate the process by which projects 
are approved. Every other developed nation is doing similar types of 
projects in a third or half the time that we are, and it is ridiculous 
that we are wasting so much money dragging these projects out for so 
many years. We can accomplish the goal of accelerating the process 
without harming the environment, but the Senate so far has shown more 
interest in catering to radical environmentalists than building 
infrastructure projects.
  Program consolidation is another important reform that the House is 
pushing for in this bill. The Senate insists on including two new 
programs at the cost of $3 billion a year that would allow the 
administration to play politics with the funding that should go 
directly to the States. At a time when the highway trust fund is going 
broke, we should focus our limited transportation dollars on 
consolidating programs and eliminating wasteful programs, not creating 
new ones. Funding

[[Page H3789]]

flexibility for the States is critical to allowing the States to fund 
the most economically significant highway and bridge projects.

                              {time}  1800

  The Federal Government should not mandate that States spend their 
limited Federal aid funding on flower plantings and transportation 
museums and other questionable projects, while State budgets are 
squeezed to the breaking point. States need to be given flexibility. 
Some States need to spend more on bridge replacement. Some States need 
to spend more on crumbling highways. Some States have done more already 
on highway beautification and other enhancement-type projects and don't 
need to spend so much in that area as possibly some other States. 
States need to be given flexibility.
  Most States have a backlog of crumbling bridges and highways needing 
to be rehabilitated. Why not allow them to focus their limited 
resources on the greatest needs in their State? The needs vary from 
State to State.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the funding formula for how Federal highway 
funding is distributed to States is based in part at least on the 
number of earmarks the States received in the last reauthorization 
bill. Funding formulas should be based on the most equitable factors 
that are part of a State's transportation system, not which Member of 
Congress fared the best in the last go around.
  I hope these reasonable issues can be resolved before the end of the 
week.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend allowing me to 
speak on this.
  There is no one I have more respect for than my good friend from 
Tennessee. I had a great time working with him on a variety of things 
when I was on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. But with 
all due respect, I think the issue here is what we're going to do to 
renew and rebuild America.
  For the first time in history, our Republican friends gave us a 
partisan transportation reauthorization. Never before have we seen 
anything like this offered up. There wasn't even a hearing before the 
full committee before it was advanced. It went right to work session. 
There was no effort to involve people on the other side of the aisle. 
We were given a piece of legislation that attacked transit, that scaled 
down funding, that was against the most popular programs, the ones that 
have the greatest local involvement, the enhancements. It was an 
environmental catastrophe. It was so bad that my Republican colleagues 
couldn't even bring their bill to the floor. They withdrew it. And so 
we had the ninth extension.
  We have been given a bill in the other body that, as my good friend 
from Minnesota pointed out, received 74 votes. It will give us two 
complete construction cycles. It does, in fact, accelerate 
environmental processes. There is a compromise, a bipartisan 
compromise, on the previous contentious area of enhancements. It is a 
reasonable way for us to go forward.
  Mr. Speaker, in contrast to this, we have a Republican budget that 
will not even fund the current obligations. It will cut out entirely 
the ability to move forward with any new Federal partnership for 
infrastructure.
  I think the motion to instruct is a modest step forward. I 
respectfully suggest that what we ought to do is not just approve the 
motion to instruct; we ought to approve the Senate bill and get on with 
business.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on 
transportation issues, and with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), a leading member of 
our committee.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise in support of the motion to instruct.
  Passing a transportation bill is about jobs. It's about keeping 
America competitive in the world. So I, for one, am urging a ``yes'' 
vote on this motion to instruct. I believe it is critical to America 
that we pass a transportation bill.
  I would like to correct a few facts that my good friend from Oregon 
just put forward. The gentleman to my recollection has been on the Ways 
and Means Committee for the past couple of years, 4 years I believe it 
has been, so I don't know how privy he was to what we did in the House 
Transportation Committee to try to be inclusive to our Democratic 
colleagues, to work with them. We worked with them as openly, if not 
more openly, than Chairman Oberstar when he chaired the committee. We 
did have a full committee hearing on it. In fact, we had 18 hours of 
debate. And as I recall, when Chairman Oberstar chaired the committee, 
we had zero hours of debate in the full committee because a bill from 
the Democratic-controlled House didn't even make it to the full 
committee. So we worked hard and we talked with our colleagues. 
Unfortunately, being bipartisan is not just one party saying that they 
can't work with another party. It takes two of us to tango. We did in 
the last bill. I wasn't happy with much of Chairman Oberstar's bill, 
but to move a bill forward, we said okay, we're with you, we'll move 
the bill. Our Democratic colleagues chose to make it a partisan fight 
by not getting together with us.

  But I applaud my friend from Minnesota with this motion to instruct. 
We need to move forward. What we have been negotiating in the Senate, 
really five provisions on our streamlining that are extremely 
important--eliminating duplication, where you have a State that's 
environmental review process is as strong or stronger than the Federal 
review process, that should take the place. It should substitute for 
the Federal review process. The number one example of that is 
California. California is far stricter on environmental reviews than 
the EPA is. So why don't we allow California to move forward rather 
than having to go through a NEPA review at the Federal level?
  Hard deadlines; concurrent rather than consecutive reviews with hard 
deadlines. We've been talking with the Senate for the past couple of 
months about this, but they insist upon having safety valves. What does 
safety valves mean? That means that an agency can go to the Secretary 
of Transportation and ask for a waiver and say they need more time. 
That's not going to help to streamline this process because we know 
what will happen: it'll continue to prolong these review processes.
  Funding thresholds for a NEPA review. If a project receives de 
minimis amounts of Federal funding, it should not be subject to a 
Federal NEPA review but should go through the same regulations as a 
State project. And we've already moved on this. We sent a counteroffer 
to the Senate moving on our position. So in good faith, that's what 
we've been doing in the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The time of the gentleman 
has expired.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Categorical exclusions in rights of way. If you're going 
to replace a bridge in the same footprint, we shouldn't have to go 
through these endless, long environmental reviews. We should be able to 
build that quickly and efficiently. In fact, my colleague from Oregon, 
who is the ranking member on the Highway Subcommittee, has suggested 
that there is some common ground there. In fact, I quote him, he said, 
and it had to do with putting streetcars back on the streets:
  We're going to have fewer cars on the road, why should we spend a lot 
of time and money studying it?
  And I agree with him.
  And finally, when there's a disaster, to eliminate or to reduce 
significantly these reviews they have to go through, just as in the 
case of I 35, as was mentioned earlier, to be able to build that bridge 
in a much more efficient, faster time to get it up and running.
  I support the gentleman's motion to instruct, and I stand ready as a 
Republican on the conference committee to put a bill forward that we 
can pass here, and I would urge all of my colleagues in the House to 
support this motion to instruct.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He's 
a good friend and colleague and an honest broker on things.

[[Page H3790]]

  I agree with the gentleman on the categorically excluded bridges; 96 
percent are now. So we can decide now, do we want to bog down on that 
last 4 percent, or do we want to get a bill forward? I think there's 
agreement here. I think we're in a clear-cut case of if the perfect 
gets in the way of the good, the American public pays for that. But I 
appreciate his support on this and his desire to get a bill done. And I 
think it's been obvious that he wants this transportation bill done, so 
I thank the gentleman.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).

                              {time}  1810

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

       The only binding cement, and no otherwise to be effected 
     but by opening such communications as will make it easier and 
     cheaper for them to bring the product of their labor to our 
     markets.

  And that's relevant today, I'll address that in a moment.
  The second quote which is relevant to the dispute today is:

       We are either united people under one head for Federal 
     purposes, or we are 13 independent sovereign entities 
     eternally counteracting each other.

  This is the need--and the gentleman knows this photo well. There are 
more than 70,000 bridges that are structurally deficient in this 
country, load limited; there are another 70,000 or so that are 
functionally obsolete or need substantial repair--150,000 bridges. 
Forty percent of the pavement on the National Highway System doesn't 
just need an overlay; it needs to be dug up; it needs underlayment and 
restructuring. And a $70 billion backlog on our transit systems.
  We are actually killing people because we aren't investing in our 
infrastructure, let alone losing the opportunities for millions of jobs 
and economic competitiveness and more fuel efficiency.
  People died right here in Washington, D.C., on the Metro because 
they're running cars that don't work anymore in the middle of trains, 
surrounded by cars that are supposed to work and help the ones that 
don't work.
  People died here because this bridge collapsed.
  We need to make these investments. With the Made In America 
requirements in the transportation portions of our government--which 
are the strongest and we hope to make even stronger in this bill, 
working with the Republican side of the aisle here--we could put 
millions to work, not just construction workers who certainly need the 
jobs, but also small businesses that supply, fabrication firms, 
manufacturing firms, steel manufacturers, and others across the board 
would be put to work rebuilding our infrastructure.
  What's the problem?
  Here's the problem: The second thing that George Washington talked 
about, saying that we're either united or we're going to be internally 
counteracting one another. There are, unfortunately, a substantial 
number of Republicans in their conference who have blocked movement on 
a bill because they don't believe, unlike George Washington, that the 
Federal Government has a role to play in coordinating a national 
transportation system. They want to devolve to the States. They want to 
go back to the good old days before Dwight David Eisenhower brought us 
into the modern era with the National Highway System. Here's the good 
old days. That's the brand-spanking-new Kansas turnpike--oops, it ends 
in Amos Schweizer's field. That's the Oklahoma State line.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. That's the Oklahoma State line.
  Oklahoma had promised to build their section, but they couldn't 
because they had a funding dispute. And they didn't--until the 
Eisenhower bill passed and we had Federal aid to help Oklahoma build 
their section.
  Now, we should go back to those good old days?
  But there are some 85-odd members of the Republican Conference who 
are opposing a well-funded, longer term bill because this is their 
belief: These were better days for the United States of America.
  Well, I'll tell you what. We could do a bill, and we could do a bill 
that does accommodate some of the concerns on the Republican side of 
the aisle with a serious conference over the next few days, with a will 
just to get it done, put America back to work, and rebuild our 
infrastructure. And you're going to have to have, unfortunately, 
because of your devolutionists, some Democratic votes to pass it.
  Let's go back to the days of Denny Hastert: A majority of the 
majority need to vote for a bill, but it doesn't have to be passed only 
with Republican votes. We're not going to ever get a bill done if it's 
done on a partisan basis.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland), a very active member 
of our committee.
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I'd like to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for 
yielding time.
  As a new Member of this body, it was quite an honor to be appointed a 
conferee to go to conference. Those who are a part of this body 
recognize that, that it's usually something that obviously senior 
Members are appointed to. It was a great honor and it still is, even 
though we have yet to have a product that we can vote upon.
  You can imagine my disappointment when, after attending five working 
group meetings, I did not have a single individual to look at on the 
other side of the table representing the other body. You see, when the 
American people sent us here, I believe they sent us here to change the 
way we do business. And I'm pleased that we were sent to be involved in 
those five meetings.
  I keep hearing oftentimes in the media, Mr. Speaker, that it is the 
Republican side that isn't perhaps interested in a bill. But I would 
say, if that were true, then why did I attend five working group 
meetings only to have no counterpart on the other side of the table?
  We recognize not just words; we recognize actions.
  I think the American people are so tired of words. I think that they 
would be terribly disappointed if they knew that their elected Members 
did not even attend meetings. And if they did not attend these working 
group meetings, then how could they be serious and expecting us to 
believe that they're interested in a bill? I think that we trample on 
their trust when we don't do the people's work. It's terribly, terribly 
disappointing.

  I want the reforms. I believe they're important. I believe that if we 
can build a bridge like I 35 through Minnesota, if we can rebuild it in 
437 days, I think it makes sense to include streamlining provisions in 
this bill that say that every project around the country is just as 
important as I 35, and so, therefore, we need to build all bridges back 
to their original state without having to go through long, laborious, 
expensive environmental impact studies if we're rebuilding that bridge 
back or repaving that road back on the original footprint. I think that 
makes sense.
  I think the American people want us to do their work. They want us to 
create a bill of value and a bill that is paid for. I think that what 
we have voted upon and the reforms that we have asked to be considered, 
not only have they not been answered or even addressed, but we haven't 
even had the opportunity to even look at one of our counterparts on the 
other side of the aisle and speak to them at conference. It's terribly 
disappointing.
  With that, I rise in support of this motion to instruct because I 
believe that we need to have Members come and we need to debate and we 
need to do the people's business.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for his support.
  At this time, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to a senior member of the 
Transportation Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank my friend from Minnesota for 
yielding.
  I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees.
  Let me start by just making clear that this issue of categorical 
exclusion is one that's important for us to all

[[Page H3791]]

recognize. The 35W bridge, the rebuild was subject to a categorical 
exclusion, so it was not held up.
  Again, I will repeat what my friend from Minnesota said: 96 percent 
of the projects that go forward with highway bill funding are subject 
to a categorical exclusion. We really have to ask ourselves if we are 
going to continue to allow unemployment in the construction industry at 
35 percent for 4 percent of the projects that are constructed under the 
highway bill.
  This motion would direct conferees to adopt a final conference report 
no later than this Friday, June 22. In fact, June 22 represents the 
100th day since the Senate passed MAP 21 with an overwhelming 
bipartisan majority of 74 22. It's fully paid for, and it will save or 
create an estimated 3 million jobs. In fact, in my State alone, at 
least 115,000 jobs will be saved or created if we can get either a 
successful conference report or the passage of MAP 21.
  It's been 126 days since the House Rules Committee began considering 
H.R. 7 for floor consideration, which faltered soon thereafter when my 
Republican colleagues could not gain consensus within their own caucus 
and the bill died. It's now been 62 days since the House passed a shell 
bill to allow conference negotiations to begin.
  Finally, and most importantly, we are a mere 6 legislative days away 
from the expiration of our highway programs when the current 90-day 
extension expires on June 30.
  During this entire time, one fact has been a constant: that the men 
and women of our construction industry continue to suffer with one of 
the highest rates of unemployment for any industry. We continue the 
lack of certainty that a multiyear highway bill would provide. It would 
provide States the ability to plan and initiate projects, to put people 
back to work and begin the much-needed improvements to our roadways, 
bridges, and transit systems desperately needed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I applaud my Senate colleagues who put aside 
partisan politics to advance a bipartisan bill. To their credit, the 
Senate put forward that which they could agree on and set aside to a 
later date that on which they could not agree. It was a sensible and 
successful strategy.
  With Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans, House Democrats and the 
White House all supporting MAP 21, it is clear that if we can just get 
the House Republicans on board we can get a bill, and that's what we 
need to do. We can get a bill, because a temporary extension--yet 
another--is not a strategy that works. A temporary extension is not the 
answer. We will soon exhaust the trust fund, States and municipalities 
will not have the certainty they need to plan, thus construction 
companies will not be able to hire, and we will lose yet another 
construction season.
  A temporary extension is not the answer. Passing a conference report 
by June 30, or passing MAP 21, is the answer.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), who has been one of our 
lead negotiators on trying to come up with a transportation bill in our 
conference.
  Mr. LANKFORD. I thank my colleague from Tennessee.
  It is interesting for me to be able to hear the indignation and 
saying we've got to get this bill done. It's important that it gets 
resolved, and I would have to say I completely agree with my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle.
  This is a very important bill. Every person who gets in a vehicle, 
gets in a bus, gets in a truck, or has any piece or item in their home 
that's delivered by truck, train, whatever it may be, is affected by 
this. So it's very important.
  But just a quick history lesson. When I arrived here in January of 
last year, we were on extension No. 6 because the previous highway bill 
expired in 2009. And when Democrats had the House and the Senate, and 
the Presidency, and they loaded their bill up with earmarks to get it 
passed, they did not get a bill passed.
  So it's interesting to hear the conversation about, well, if 
Republicans in the House could get this resolved, then we'd get this 
settled, when, in reality, there are a lot of technical details that 
better be right that even when Democrats had the House, the Senate, and 
the Presidency for 2 years could not get this bill done, even with all 
the earmarks.
  This is a different day. We're trying to work together between the 
House and the Senate. One body doesn't pass a bill and the other body 
just says, I'll tell you what, you passed it; we'll just go ahead and 
do that. If so, I would love for the Senate to take up many of the 
bills that we passed in the House and just have the Senate go ahead and 
pass those. But this has to be a bicameral agreement.
  We're not going to do this with earmarks. That's a big difference. In 
the past, these bills had thousands upon thousands of earmarks, and we 
have determined no more, we're not going to do it that way. We have to 
live within the budget, and we have to be able to help a few things 
work a lot better than they have in the past.
  Major highways right now take about 15 years in construction. We 
think that's way too long. The first 7 years of that is just in 
permitting and process and this repetitive process that we have with 
the Federal Government with this linear permitting. We just want to be 
able to stack those permits up, allow people to be able to take the 
first step on it, still have all the same environmental reviews, but do 
it in a way that's faster and is more streamlined. It saves time. It 
saves money. It actually builds those roads a lot faster than waiting 
all of this time.
  I can tell you, many people in Oklahoma stare at the engineering work 
on both sides of the road and hear about new construction that's 
happening, but they hear about it and hear about it and hear about it 
and hear about it before the dirt ever gets turned. We want to try to 
get these road projects started and completed.
  We want to allow road money to actually be used for roads. Now, I 
know that's a crazy idea, but we'd like highway money to be used for 
highways. We'd like to stay within budget, and we'd like the States to 
be able to have the flexibility to spend their money, remembering it's 
their money, not Washington, D.C.'s money.
  That 18.4 cents that came out of that State is going back into that 
State in gas tax. We want the individuals that actually paid that gas 
tax to be able to help resolve how that's going to best be used.
  If they have bridges that are coming down, let's fix bridges.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota and 
the manager, and my friends on the other side of the aisle.
  This is an important, crucial motion to instruct. Crucial is the 
word. And I thank the gentleman for recognizing that while we are here, 
others are languishing, bridges are languishing, highways are 
languishing, ports, and even our mass transit concerns are languishing 
because we have not moved forward. One, two, three, four, five--I think 
we're up to five extensions the last 5 to 7 years, if my counting is 
correct.
  But most importantly, let me congratulate Members from both sides of 
the aisle that have come forward to support the gentleman's motion to 
instruct, which evidences how crucial this motion is and how we need to 
move beyond the many, many conference calls that I know that those 
conferees who are in are getting from so many interest groups, and 
indicate that we need to move forward and bring a report forward that 
will not stop us from continuing to negotiate on some of the many 
sidebar issues.
  But as we languish, we're losing jobs. As we languish, Americans are 
unemployed. As we languish, bridges continue to crumble.
  I remember our good friend, Chairman Oberstar, who taught us a few 
years ago that if you pass a transportation and infrastructure bill, 
you put America back to work. Tragically, as he was speaking some years 
ago, tragically one of his own bridges in that area had a very 
devastating impact in the fracturing of that bridge.

[[Page H3792]]

  We don't want to see that anymore. We want to be able to see people 
going to work. And so I simply would ask that this motion to instruct 
be followed. Bring to the floor in a conference report not later than 
June 22, 2012, the ability to pass this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Bring to the floor this conference report, 
put to work people in Texas, fix bridges and put to work people in 
Minnesota, Virginia, New York, across the Nation, south, north, east 
and west, and begin to solve separate difficult problems, if I might 
say, on the side.
  I want to see our workers working, many of our friends in the IBEW 
and building trades and many other supporting unions for the machinists 
and others, working. I believe this is a bipartisan message. Let's do 
it now.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack), a very important member 
of our conference.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree more with my colleague from Minnesota, 
and I rise in support of his motion to instruct. We will continue to 
stand ready to negotiate with the Senate.
  As a conferee, I have partaken in some of these meetings myself and 
have negotiated in good faith with Senate staff. Unfortunately, no 
Senators.
  The highway trust fund is bankrupt, and the Federal highway program 
is in need of serious reform. Congressman Walz is quite correct in that 
we cannot continue to kick this can down the road. And I will say the 
conferee House positions are fair and practical.
  Allowing States the flexibility in order to address their specific 
transportation needs just makes sense. We have a $15.7 trillion debt; 
46 percent of our debt is foreign owned, 30 percent owned by one 
country, China. We do not have the luxury, as the Senate bill requires, 
to spend money on things like wildflowers and, at the same time, the 
trust fund is bankrupt.
  And as Mr. Walz and Mr. DeFazio point out, bridges are in disrepair 
and roads are crumbling. We need to get our priorities in order.
  The House bill consolidates and eliminates programs, as opposed to 
creating $3 billion a year and increasing new programs like the Senate 
bill. This is not extreme; it's fiscally responsible.
  The 293 bipartisan House Members voted to approve the Keystone 
pipeline, a fair and practical approach to helping lower gas prices at 
the pump and creating tens of thousands of jobs without hurting the 
environment.
  Finally, the House positions of streamlining and significantly 
reducing the time it takes, without harming the environment, to build a 
major road project in this country is a practicable position; 15 years 
to permit, design, and build is not.
  The Senate steadfastly refuses to cut any bureaucratic red tape that 
is associated with building a highway or bridge. We need to stop good-
paying construction jobs from being endlessly tied up.
  If the Senate is serious, as we are, to get this done early next 
week, I hope that they engage in good faith in a bicameral fashion.
  I thank my colleague from Minnesota again for bringing this up. This 
is a very important position, I support his motion to instruct, and I 
urge my colleagues to do so as well.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for his support.
  At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the House Republicans are doing nothing 
short of sabotaging our economy and jeopardizing millions of jobs by 
refusing to pass a long-term, well-funded transportation bill like the 
bipartisan Senate bill. There were 74 Senators, including 22 
Republicans, who voted in favor of S. 1813, MAP 21. At one point, 
Speaker of the House John Boehner expressed his support for the 
bipartisan Senate bill. It is time for us to pass that legislation.
  The unemployment rate in the construction industry remains nearly 
triple the national average. Construction workers, engineers, 
architects, managers, contractors, and developers tell me that another 
short-term extension will not bring enough certainty to the industry. 
In Illinois, my State, the failure to pass a long-term transportation 
extension at the peak of the construction season has kept many 
unemployed and put thousands of other jobs at risk. Our States, our 
localities, our businessowners, and our workers deserve better.
  MAP 21 is the single largest jobs bill passed by either body in this 
112th Congress. In my home State of Illinois alone, MAP 21 will save or 
create 70,000 jobs. Nationwide, the bill will save or create nearly 2 
million jobs and spur 1 million additional jobs through the leveraging 
of transit funds.
  I am a strong supporter of MAP 21, and we should send it to the 
President's desk this week. I can't support and our workers can't 
support another short-term extension that will leave thousands of 
Illinois jobs hanging in the balance. We need to move forward with 
legislation that does more than kick the can down the road.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana, Dr. Bucshon, who has been a lead negotiator on 
our conference committee for the Republican side.
  Mr. BUCSHON. I would like to thank Mr. Walz for bringing this to the 
floor. I believe that we all can agree we must pass a long-term highway 
bill.
  In my home State of Indiana, Interstate 69 is being constructed 
through my district, connecting my district to our State's capital. 
When I return home every weekend, I see how important Federal dollars 
are to the construction industry and how necessary infrastructure is to 
the economic development of our cities and towns.
  As a member of the conference committee for the highway bill, I have 
personally been involved in this process. My House colleagues and I 
have attended several negotiation sessions and have discussed this 
legislation at length with the Senate staff. I wish our friends in the 
Senate were as involved in the process, because we could have resolved 
many of these issues weeks ago.
  I think my friends on the other side of the aisle here in the House 
seem to forget that we don't just rubberstamp Senate bills and that 
they don't rubberstamp ours. If that were the case, they'd take up the 
30 House-passed job-creating bills that we've sent over to them in the 
last year.
  Nobody is more committed to this legislation than Members of the 
House on the Republican side. We want to streamline the project 
delivery process, eliminate duplicative programs, give more power back 
to the States, and stretch our limited dollars further. These are 
proposals that every Member of this body should support. We need a 
long-term reauthorization that will provide certainty to our Nation's 
job creators.
  I support this motion, and I look forward to the completion of this 
conference.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for his support and for 
his work on this.
  At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for 
yielding time for me to discuss this.
  During this approximately 1 hour of debate, it pays to listen to what 
has actually been said. What has been said by my Republican colleagues 
is: It's our way or no highway. We're going to have our way or no 
highway.
  What is their way? What is it that the Republicans are demanding? Get 
past the nice rhetoric, and look at the detail underlying the words: 
eliminate duplication. What does that mean? Well, it basically means 
eliminating the environmental laws. Oh, we don't need them. The States 
can take care of it.
  I think not.
  They want to focus on highways. Well, we all do; but what does that 
mean? It means that they want to eliminate the public transportation 
portion of this legislation. Okay. So no buses, no trains, no light 
rail funding. Get into the details about what is actually being 
demanded by our Republican

[[Page H3793]]

colleagues, and you begin to say, Well, wait a minute. I think we can 
understand why there has not been progress here.
  We need to really move forward. Some 60,000 construction workers have 
lost their jobs in the last 5 months. As our Republican colleagues have 
laid out their demands, which they have essentially said are 
nonnegotiable--their way or no highway--they're holding this country 
hostage. They're holding the construction industry hostage so that they 
can have their way. Understand what their way means: no public 
transportation programs. Oh, we'll repair bridges and we'll do 
highways--and that's good--but there's more to it than this: no bike 
paths, no safety for men and women who are walking along our highways.
  That's their way. That's not what America's way needs to be.
  We need to pass a bill. Two million people want to go to work. Yes, 
they agree with Mr. Walz' proposal, which is to get this thing done. 
What they're really saying is: Get it done our way or there will be no 
highway. The Senate has passed a bill, and 74 Democrats and Republicans 
agreed to it. Let's get it done.
  If you can get it your way in the next 3 days, fine. Otherwise, give 
us the Senate bill, and let's put men and women to work here in this 
country. We cannot afford any more layoffs in the construction 
industry. We can no longer afford to wait. A 2-year bill is essential.

  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers 
on our side, so I will close by saying just a couple of things.
  The last highway bill that passed with only eight dissenting votes, 
which has been mentioned here a couple of times tonight, was passed 
when the Republicans were in control of the Congress. I think that 
shows very clearly that the overwhelming majority of Republicans in the 
Congress supports highway bills and that we want to do one this year.
  One of the main sticking points for us, one of the problems, is that 
in my almost quarter century in this body we've been talking about 
giving lip service to environmental streamlining all through those 
years, but we really never have accomplished anything. You've heard it 
said several times tonight that the Federal Highway Administration says 
the average highway project--and these are not transcontinental roads--
takes 15 years to build when all of these other developed nations are 
doing these projects in a third or in half the time that we are. We 
have got to do more with less during this time of budgetary 
constraints. We want to do these things because these are jobs that 
can't be outsourced to foreign countries. They are jobs that will be 
done here. They're important to this economy.
  The Republicans believe that there is an important and legitimate 
role for the Federal Government in transportation projects. People in 
California use the airports in Texas and vice versa. People in New York 
sometimes drink the water in Florida and vice versa. People in Ohio 
sometimes drive on the highways in Tennessee and vice versa. All people 
benefit from lower prices when our ports operate efficiently.
  All of the things that we deal with on the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee Republicans believe in, and they want to see a 
good, legitimate--but not dictatorial--Federal role in those projects. 
We believe that the role of the States is very important, and we 
believe that the role of the local governments and the local people 
should be paramount because they know the needs of their States and of 
their localities better than almost anyone.
  We are supportive of the gentleman from Minnesota, and we are 
supportive of his motion to instruct because our goal is the same as 
his in that we want to produce a good, conservative, reasonable 
transportation bill for this Nation, and we want to do it sooner rather 
than later.

                              {time}  1840

  We would like to do it within the next few days. Before we can do 
that--the other body does not control this process. They have to take 
into consideration what the House wants as well. That's what we're 
talking about.
  With that, I support the motion to instruct by the gentleman from 
Minnesota, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Tennessee, a leader on this. He has the institutional 
experience and knowledge and is always gracious. I would have to say 
you're going to find a lot of agreement from me on this. I certainly 
think that is the case.
  The American public deserves better. I think they deserve a debate 
like they're seeing tonight. They see a sense of respect that goes back 
and forth. Frustrations get high in this House, but I keep thinking 
back to the immeasurable sacrifices that went into self-governances. It 
would be a lot easier--I had a gentleman one time tell me that there's 
too many Members of Congress; we should cut the numbers in half. I 
said, Why think so small? Get rid of all of us and just name a king, 
and then you don't have to worry about this messy democracy.
  That's not what Americans do. We understand that there's 435 good 
opinions here, differences, strong opinions for the right things about 
this country, but we disagree on how some of those things should get 
done. At the end of the day, those differences are a strength if we can 
get the glue that holds us together as a Nation in a compromise. I will 
be the first to say that I certainly don't want to see this House 
capitulate its responsibility, but I also understand that at times 
there are certain realities of what can move and what cannot. I think 
deadlines like this motion to instruct puts in makes that deadline 
solid and it asks what can we give.
  Many of the provisions my colleagues were talking about, whether it 
is Keystone pipeline--I am personally supportive of that. If it's in 
here, I think that's a good thing. But I understand that a lot of my 
colleagues don't, and there's no way the Senate does that. The American 
people have elected us. They've elected a Senate that doesn't agree 
with that. So at the end of the day, I have to make a choice and all of 
us do. Is it worth holding up a highway bill over a piece of 
legislation that I personally like but don't believe that it outpaces 
the point of getting these roads built?
  I think the public wants to see us do that. I certainly am willing to 
compromise, as my friend from Tennessee has always proven to me, to try 
and get it right. And I think the public wants us to stand by our 
principles of trying to get it there. But at the end of the day, 
something has to be done, something has to move forward. The country 
depends on a workable infrastructure.
  I can't tell you, in watching this happen, of seeing how important 
moving those products is when the I 35W bridge was in the river, not 
just in terms of the loss of life, the tragedy that happened there, but 
the disruptions that happened also, that sprung out and rippled into 
the economy. I think all of us understand that tragic incident, that we 
don't want to see it replicated, and we also know that smart 
investments prevent it from happening.
  Mr. Speaker, I am appreciative of the Members who came and spoke 
passionately tonight. I'm appreciative of the folks who understand that 
this deliberative body has to come to some type of resolution. I would 
urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct, simply asking us 
to do the work we were sent here to do, get it done on time, and get 
America working and moving again.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the Appropriations Committee 
voted to report the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill 
to the full House. This bill makes an insufficient investment in our 
national transportation system in part because the Committee had to 
insert placeholder language for several important transportation 
provisions, notably the Federal highway system and transit programs, 
due to the lack of an agreement on long-term funding.
  The House Republicans' inability to work in a bipartisan manner to 
reach a compromise on surface transportation reauthorization conference 
committee negotiations is preventing us from fully investing in our 
Nation's transportation systems to put people back to work and grow our 
economy.
  For every $1 billion of infrastructure investment, we create at least 
30,000 jobs and generate more than $6 billion worth of economic

[[Page H3794]]

activity that reverberates throughout our economy, improving our 
national competitiveness and spurring job creation for years to come.
  With the national construction unemployment around 14 percent and 
upwards of 40 percent in my area in recent years, workers need and want 
to get back on the job.
  Despite being a priority for the Department of Transportation, the 
Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement project in my district is stalled because 
the current Federal financing pipeline is too small.
  I join Mr. Walz in urging the conferees to file a conference report 
so that we can get on with our work to make the vital investments in 
our national infrastructure system.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. 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.

                          ____________________