[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4486-4505]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2012

  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 600 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 600

         Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     4281) 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.

[[Page 4487]]

     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.
         Sec. 2.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for 
     a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported on the legislative 
     day of March 29, 2012, providing for consideration or 
     disposition of a measure extending expiring surface 
     transportation authority.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WEBSTER. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and 
the potential it holds for a bipartisan, bicameral agreement for a 
long-term transportation reauthorization bill.
  House Resolution 600 provides for a closed rule for prompt 
consideration of H.R. 4281, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 
2012.
  H.R. 4281 simply calls for a 90-day extension of current 
transportation legislation at existing funding levels. Without the 
extension, critical transportation programs around the country will 
begin to shut down Saturday night at midnight. The Federal Government 
will no longer be able to collect the user fees necessary to maintain 
the highway trust fund, and eventually it would be unable to pay 
obligations that have already been incurred for construction projects. 
Most importantly, according to recent reports, a shutdown Saturday 
would immediately furlough 3,500 Federal employees and put up to 
130,000 highway projects at risk.
  A 90-day extension is no one's ideal scenario; but at this juncture 
it appears necessary, necessary not only to avoid the calamity that 
comes from current legislation's expiration, but also necessary for the 
continued potential for a long-term reauthorization. With passage of 
this extension, a long-term reauthorization remains within reach.
  The transportation bill passed out of the House Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee has many laudable provisions. It streamlines 
and consolidates Federal transportation programs, cuts red tape and 
Washington bureaucracy, and increases funding flexibility to States and 
local governments, better leverages existing infrastructures resources, 
and encourages more private sector participation in rebuilding our 
Nation's infrastructure. It provides 5 years of certainty and stability 
with flat funding that is paid for without raising taxes.
  I'm sure that the authors and proponents of the Senate bill can point 
to a menu of laudable policy provisions within their bill as well.
  With this extension, we don't give up on the likelihood of the best 
of both bills being reconciled, and long-term certainty and stability 
can be provided to those tasked with rebuilding our Nation's 
transportation infrastructure.
  To be sure, however, the task at hand remains avoiding expiration of 
the existing authorization this Saturday night. I don't have to 
reiterate the consequences that loom if we do not act. As the Chamber 
of Commerce wrote in a letter to the Members earlier this week: ``An 
extension is not the best course of action, but it must be done.''
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the 
potential this short-term extension holds for coming together in a 
bipartisan, bicameral way for a long-term authorization of our Nation's 
transportation programs.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida 
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, where do I begin? This is one more opportunity lost, one 
more opportunity squandered by this Republican-controlled House.
  We are just days away from the expiration of the laws that authorize 
our surface transportation programs, and yet here we are debating a 
politically charged, unnecessary, and partisan bill that just kicks the 
can down the road a few months.
  Last month, this House began, but could not finish, consideration of 
the most partisan drafted--possibly the only partisan drafted--highway 
reauthorization bill in history. Let me repeat that. The House could 
not complete consideration of the Republican bill, a Republican bill 
that would have been considered a joke if it weren't such a serious 
breach of responsibility.
  This is like a bad soap opera. Just when the twists and turns can't 
get more fantastical and crazy, someone comes up with an even zanier 
idea just to keep the plot lines moving along. I'm waiting for the 
mysterious twin brother to show up.

                              {time}  0920

  The plotline here is that the Republican leadership keeps 
manufacturing ways not to do the simple thing, the right thing, and 
that is to pass the Senate bill, the 2-year bill that passed the Senate 
74-22, clearly and overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion.
  It's refreshing and a bit strange when the Senate can put their 
ideological differences aside and actually pass a decent bill. It's not 
every day that Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator James Inhofe agree on 
a bill, but that's what happened with the Senate bill.
  Now, I'm not going to stand here and say that the Senate bill is the 
bill I would have drafted. To the contrary, I want a 5-year 
reauthorization that is fully funded, a bill that results in real jobs 
and a bill that invests in important areas like public transit.
  While the Senate bill lasts for only 2 years, it is a good start and 
it is much better than the Republican proposal we have here today. For 
my colleagues who have a short memory, let me recap where we were last 
month.
  The Republican leadership took a 1,000-page bill, undoubtedly the 
most partisan transportation bill in Congressional history, and made it 
worse. They took a bill that was written in secret and jammed through 
the Transportation Committee and inserted unrelated and controversial 
provisions like the Keystone pipeline, ANWR, offshore drilling, and 
cuts in Federal pensions. Even worse, they changed the rules in the 
middle of the game. Specifically, after everyone had submitted their 
amendments to the original single bill, Speaker Boehner decided to 
split it into three separate measures, which meant that many of the 
amendments could not be considered in the way that they were originally 
drafted.
  Now, of course the Republicans quickly realized that they didn't have 
the votes for that bill and yanked it from the floor. It must have been 
pretty embarrassing because it's been over a month since they gave up 
on that bill.
  And what has the Republican leadership been doing over the last 
month? Negotiating with House Democrats to reach a bipartisan 
compromise? Talking with the Senate on ways to properly reauthorize 
these programs and bring jobs back to the economy? Of course not. Over 
the past month, the Republican leadership has been sitting around 
pointing fingers and complaining that they can't move the 
transportation bill, even though Republicans are in control of this 
House.
  It's the end of March, and Republicans can't get their act together 
to get a real transportation bill passed. You call that leadership? 
Give me a break.

[[Page 4488]]

  Leadership is about governing. Leadership is about doing what's 
right. Honestly, Mr. Speaker, there's no leadership here.
  Shame on this leadership for bringing us here today. Shame on this 
leadership for putting the American jobs on the line just because they 
cannot manage their own internal politics. That's right. By refusing to 
pass the Senate bill today, Republicans are putting American jobs on 
the line.
  With the economy slowly recovering and with more than 2.7 million 
construction and manufacturing workers still out of work, why do 
Republicans want to play Russian roulette with this important jobs 
bill?
  We should not be in this position today. This is a manufactured 
crisis, a crisis that is a product of a lack of leadership, a crisis 
that is a product of a lack of bipartisan cooperation.
  Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity to consider the Senate bill today, 
but the Rules Committee, mislabeled by some as the most open Rules 
Committee in decades, blocked that bill from consideration.
  That's right. This new majority put this bill on the floor, sight 
unseen, and without any markup or hearing. They waived their own 3-day 
layover rule, and this is a closed rule. In fact, I can't even seem to 
find a CBO score for this bill. And this is the open process my 
colleagues on the Rules Committee are so proud of.
  This is a completely closed rule. I offered the Senate bill as an 
amendment to this rule last night so that Members could have an 
opportunity to vote on it today, not in place of the Republican bill, 
but as a stand-alone amendment.
  Speaker Boehner is fond of saying, let the House work its will, but 
apparently the Republicans on the Rules Committee do not believe in 
that philosophy because they blocked my amendment on a party-line vote. 
Why did they block my amendment? As the chairman of the Rules Committee 
is fond of usually saying, because they could.
  Now, I will try one more time to offer the Senate amendment. 
Congressman Tim Bishop introduced H.R. 14, the exact same language as 
the Senate-passed bill. If this House defeats the previous question, 
Congressman Bishop will be able to offer his amendment to the 
Republican bill, not in place of, just alongside the Republican bill. 
The House, like Speaker Boehner promised, would then be able to work 
its will.
  Now, it's clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican leadership is more 
concerned with political victories than with legislating. It is clear 
that the Republican leadership would rather score cheap political 
points with their right-wing base than promote and create jobs in 
America.
  President Clinton was fond of saying, The perfect can't be the enemy 
of the good. There's a perfectly good bipartisan Senate bill that would 
pass this House overwhelmingly if the Republican leadership decided to 
bring it up. But no, the Republican leadership would rather play 
chicken with people's jobs on the line instead of actually legislating, 
let alone legislating in a bipartisan way.
  It is clear that when the far right wing of the far right wing 
opposes something, the Republican leadership crumbles like cheap 
asphalt.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2005, the Congress passed SAFETEA-LU, which is the 
last transportation reauthorization bill that was long term. There was, 
under the Democratic-controlled House, a bill proposed by the chairman 
that never made it to the floor, and because it didn't make it to the 
floor--my, my, my, how we've forgotten. It was only a couple of years 
ago. But it didn't make it. It expired. SAFETEA-LU expired in 2009, 
September 30, and there was a bill, never got marked up, never 
happened.
  So what happens instead? Well, let's see. Number 1, Democrats did a 
1-month extension. Number 2, there was a 1.5-month extension. Number 3, 
there was a 2.5-month extension. Number 4, there was a 1-month 
extension. Number 5, there was a 9-month extension. Number 6, there was 
a 2-month extension.
  So, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but as far as lack of 
leadership, we are a long way from having that many extensions. We're a 
long way from having done what was done in the previous Congress.
  I would suspect that we have an opportunity here, and that 
opportunity, the way to avoid a shutdown of the Nation's transportation 
programs this Saturday night, is to pass this extension. The only way 
we can get to that is pass this rule which allows for us to consider 
that extension.
  The only way we can keep ourselves from having 3,500 Federal 
employees furloughed is to pass this extension. The only way we can 
keep 130,000 projects that are highway projects from being at risk is 
to pass this.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me respond to my friend.
  The difference is that we have an overwhelmingly bipartisan 
compromise that has passed one of the Chambers here, the Senate. This 
is the choice we have: Do we do these short-term extensions so that 
cities and towns and States can't plan, or do we take this bipartisan 
compromise that the Senate has put together so that there's some 
certainty for our cities and towns and for our States?
  I mean, that's the difference. What's happening here is that there is 
an internal fight within the Republican Party. The right wing is 
battling with the extreme right wing, and they can't agree with each 
other because you have people in the Republican Party who don't believe 
in the public sector.
  So, as this economy is struggling to get back on its feet and we see 
some recovery, more and more every month, we could actually help that 
recovery. We could move things along. We could create more jobs if we 
were to act in a different way today.
  But, instead, the right wing and the extreme right wing are having a 
fight within the Republican Party, so the Republican House leadership 
is paralyzed. That's not leadership. That's just irresponsible.
  At this point, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, 
and he is absolutely right. The passage of this rule and its approach 
is not the only way to avert a shutdown. And, in fact, the bill moving 
forward here is precisely the wrong approach because, sadly, what's 
going to happen is it's going to bifurcate the construction cycle.
  There is work going on around the country that people want to move 
forward, and the approval of a 90-day extension means that people 
cannot plan for the entire construction cycle. If they take the 
gentleman's suggestion and approve the bipartisan Senate bill, there 
will be certainty, not just for this construction cycle, but the next 
year's construction cycle.
  It's frustrating to watch our friends on the other side of the aisle 
play chicken. Remember the FAA shutdown where the Republicans in the 
House refused to accept a bill that passed the Senate overwhelmingly, 
89 votes for the FAA? Instead they choose to leave town, putting out of 
work 70,000 construction workers and laid off 4,000 others in the FAA.

                              {time}  0930

  We don't have to play this sort of infrastructure chicken.
  Later today, we are going to consider the worst budget for 
transportation in anybody's memory. The Republican budget that will be 
decided later today calls for a 46 percent reduction in transportation 
funding. There isn't enough money in the Republican budget to even pay 
for the areas that are already obligated.
  I developed this, in a friendly way, in the Budget Committee, and 
they had to agree. There are $6.5 billion more in actual outlay, 
contracts, roads, bridges, and transit projects that we're committed to 
than they would pay for.
  It's sad that we've reached this point. I hope the House rejects this 
rule which will allow Mr. Bishop to present the Senate bill for an up-
or-down vote.

[[Page 4489]]

The Republicans are afraid that actually there will be dozens of their 
Members that will join us in a bipartisan vote.
  It's a pipe dream that somehow we're better off cutting the 
construction cycle in half, not allowing people to plan, that somehow 
we'll come together and merge the worst transportation bill in history 
that would overturn 21 years of transportation reform and the agreement 
of President Reagan that we would dedicate money for transit, that we 
throw this out to the House bill that was so bad they wouldn't even 
have a hearing on it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I served for a dozen years on the Transportation 
Committee. I've worked with the Transportation Committee with 
Republican and Democratic chairs. This is an embarrassment that the 
process is not working. It doesn't have to be partisan and limited. We 
have two high-level commissions that call for more investment and 
reform.
  The best approach is to vote on the Senate bill today, which I'm 
confident will pass, which is why they don't want to bring it to a 
vote, and then come together to work as we get past this election 
``Gong Show'' process and be able to strike what truly is a grand 
bargain when we have all the moving pieces at the end of the year, when 
we're not staring down the barrel of goofy election politics, and 
people will actually be able to work on what's in the best interest of 
America.
  What's in the best interest of America is rejecting this assault on 
transportation and dealing with rebuilding and renewing the country.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the other side at least 
letting me know what they did over the last 2 years. They bifurcated 
the construction projects. They did it six times. At least now we know 
that they have knowledge of what they did during those times when they 
only gave, in some cases, 1-month extensions.
  I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), my 
colleague.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida and 
fellow Rules Committee member to allow me to speak today on behalf of 
this.
  It's interesting to stand up here and listen to what comes across 
from the other side. They talk about the FAA bill. That's a bill that 
while they were in control of this area, since 2007, there was not a 
reauthorization of that bill until this year, until the 112th Congress 
came into power. We now have a 4-year reauthorization of the FAA bill 
that sat over on the other side while they had control of this House 
since 2007. There's been no action other than just temporary fixes. The 
same goes now with this bill today in regards to transportation.
  They want you to believe that the Senate passed this great bill out 
of the Senate, a 2-year fix. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, a 2-year fix 
in this industry is like nothing at all.
  In speaking with developers and road construction folks in my State, 
they said a 6-month extension is as good as a 2-year extension, and 
basically all it does is keep their doors open. They don't hire new 
folks; they don't go out and purchase new equipment; they don't go to 
Caterpillar up in Peoria, Illinois, and buy more equipment. What they 
told me was that when the Senate came back out with an 18-month and 2-
year extension, they canceled major equipment orders in Peoria, 
Illinois. They canceled those orders because there's no reason for them 
to invest millions of dollars in equipment on a 6-month, an 18-month, 
or a 2-year extension.
  We should be standing here talking today about a 5- to 7-year 
extension of the highway bill. That's what we should be talking about. 
That gives those builders some certainty.
  We talk about certainty. The other side talks about it at great 
length, but what certainty did they show when they had control of both 
houses, the Senate and the House, and the President? What did they show 
for an accomplishment, other than short-term fixes that have nothing to 
do with certainty? The construction industry hires based upon 
certainty, how far they can look out.
  A major road builder that I talked to said: ``Listen, Rich, it's just 
not going to work that way.''
  Mr. Speaker, what they're saying to us is that for them to spend 
money to hire new workers, they need to have some certainty that 
they're going to have a 5- to 7-year window to start building upon, not 
a 6-month fix, not an 18-month fix, not a 2-year fix.
  Once again, the builders I'm talking to are saying that on these 
short-term fixes, all it does is keep the status quo alive. It allows 
them to keep the employees that they have, but they will not invest in 
new equipment, and they're not going to invest in hiring new employees 
because it's a short-term fix for them, not a long-term fix.
  We had the opportunity to do a pay-for, and I agree with my friend 
from Worcester when we talk about we should have a pay-for 5- to 7-year 
transportation bill, not a short-term fix. But if we don't do a short-
term fix today--you heard my colleague from Florida talk about what's 
going to happen on Sunday--all projects stop as we know it. That's not 
what this House should do. We need to pass the 90-day extension. We 
need to support this rule and pass the bill so we can eliminate 
uncertainty, not what we have today.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank my colleague on the Rules Committee for making, I 
think, a very strong case why we should reject the 90-day extension and 
pass a 2-year extension for this reason: because 90 days means nothing.
  He diminishes the impact of 2 years. Most people I talk to would have 
preferred 2 years to 90 days. Here's the difference. We have a 
democratically controlled Senate that worked out a deal with 
Republicans. Barbara Boxer and Jim Inhofe came together. They are very 
opposite individuals when it comes to politics, but they came together.
  Here, the Republicans are fighting Republicans. Democrats have been 
locked out of this entire process.
  Let's get real here. Let's be honest with the American people. The 
budget that you all are going to vote for later this afternoon 
decimates highway and road and bridge funding, which basically 
destroys, I think, the basis for a strong infrastructure program in 
this country. You're not here trying to argue about a better bill. 
You're trying to figure out a way to give States less, to give cities 
and towns less. That would undercut a lot of the projects that are 
being contemplated all across this country that will not only put 
people back to work but make us more economically secure. That's what 
this is all about. It's about trying to come up with an even lousier 
transportation bill than the one that you brought to the House floor.
  At this point, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
rule, and I oppose the motion to move the previous question.
  I am growing more and more deeply concerned that our Republican 
colleagues simply don't get it. They do not understand that their 
ideological crusade to ``starve the beast'' has only resulted in 
starving the American worker.
  Here we are today taking up the third version of the Republican kick-
the-can infrastructure plan down the road in a single week, the third 
version in a week.

                              {time}  0940

  If that's not a complete failure of leadership, I don't know what is.
  We are a mere 2 days away from the expiration of our highway 
programs, and they have their hands over their ears, desperate not to 
hear commonsense solutions like the bipartisan Senate highway bill.
  Since the beginning of the 112th Congress, we have witnessed time and 
time again their ``my way or the highway'' approach to governing. As a 
result, job creation is suffering; working families

[[Page 4490]]

across the Nation are suffering; the construction industry is in the 
middle of the construction season, and it's suffering because House 
Republicans want to score political points with their ideological base 
rather than solve real-world problems with real-world solutions.
  This week, the House Republicans were forced to remove two short-term 
highway extension bills from floor consideration because they would 
rather dig deeper into the conservative ranks of their caucus than 
reach across the aisle to discuss solutions for the American worker. 
Sadly, this is nothing new. They have been doing this for the past 15 
months. We have lurched from self-created crisis to self-created 
crisis. I've counted at least five over the last 15 months. Yet they 
wonder why the American public's perception of Congress is at an all-
time low.
  Meanwhile, I've sponsored H.R. 14, the Senate highway bill, which is 
a bipartisan path forward that makes meaningful reforms and provides 
certainty to States. I am proud to be offering this bipartisan 
legislation in order to refocus the discussion on jobs and economic 
opportunities rather than that of the Republican message this week of 
tearing down Medicare and protecting the 1 percent at the expense of 
middle class families.
  As of today, House Republicans have yet to put forward a credible 
highway reauthorization that puts Americans back to work. Their only 
attempt, H.R. 7, the Boehner-Mica authorization, was called the worst 
highway bill ever by Secretary of Transportation LaHood, a former 
distinguished Member of this body, a Republican. It was drafted in the 
dark of night without any Democratic input. It removed transit from the 
highway trust fund. It broke a 30-year bipartisan cooperation to fund 
transit, and it couldn't attract a single Democratic vote nor even a 
majority of Republican votes.
  Over in the Senate, MAP-21 passed overwhelmingly with a bipartisan 
majority and is fully paid for, something House Republicans seem unable 
to come close to achieving. The MAP-21 pay-fors are less controversial 
than those contained in the House Republican bill. The Senate has 
estimated that MAP-21 will save 1.8 million jobs and will create up to 
1 million more jobs. That's almost 3 million jobs wrapped up in this 
legislation. During a weak economic recovery that is looking for a 
jump-start, this is the kind of legislation we need to be passing.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. House Republicans had their chance to address 
our infrastructure needs with H.R. 7. Instead, they chose to pander to 
their base and chase ideological extremes. I am sorry to say their 
effort was an utter failure. MAP-21 has the support of Senate 
Democrats, Senate Republicans, House Democrats, and the administration.
  It is time that the House Republicans got on board with job creation 
instead of fighting it. Americans want jobs and safe roads and bridges. 
The Senate passed the biggest jobs-creating bill in this Congress by an 
overwhelming bipartisan majority. We have the chance to do the same 
thing. Let's move H.R. 14, and let's put this country back to work.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Thank you for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, let's just set the record straight. 
The other side says that this wasn't a bipartisan process.
  First of all, the first hearing was held in the ranking Democrat 
member's hometown and district in West Virginia. We went from sea to 
shining sea, all the way to Los Angeles, in order to accommodate a 
bicameral, unprecedented bipartisan hearing in Los Angeles. Again, the 
comments that are made here do not reflect the reality. In the 
committee, we took 100 Democrat amendments, and we accepted about 20 of 
them. In addition to when we drafted the legislation, 60 percent of the 
recommendations of the Democrats were in the draft that came before the 
committee. Yet there is this stuff about it not being bipartisan.
  Then the Republicans can't get it done. These are the people who 
cannot get it done. They controlled the House; they controlled the 
Senate; they controlled the White House during this entire process. 
They couldn't even get it to committee. They could not get the bill to 
committee. It passed a subcommittee.
  So we have passed it. They've made bipartisanship in this committee a 
one-way street, and it wasn't that way before. They will close down 
major projects across this country if we don't pass this extension. Why 
are we here for this extension for 90 days? Because we offered 90 days 
to begin with, and they said, No, we won't do 90 days because we want 
to keep things stirred up. So we said, Well, what do you want? They 
said 60 days. Okay. In the spirit of bipartisanship, we'll go 60 days. 
So then they rejected that. Some of the Democrats threw each other 
under the bus, so to speak; and here we are at 90 days again.
  So, folks, let's get the facts straight and the reality straight. 
Republicans want America to work and our infrastructure to be built.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let's get the facts straight. Let's talk about this great bipartisan 
process.
  All we're asking for today is to have an alternative to be voted on--
one substitute. That's it. That's all we've been asking for; and we've 
been told, no, you can't. It's your way or the highway. That's not 
bipartisanship.
  As for all of these great bipartisan amendments, let's everybody be 
clear on one thing: that not one single amendment has been considered 
to the transportation bill on this House floor. Not one single 
amendment has been allowed. You yanked the bill when, I guess, some of 
the extreme right wing got upset on your side for whatever reason, also 
because there were a lot of moderates who realized that the bill that 
you brought to the floor would bankrupt the highway trust fund, that it 
was bad policy for this country, and that it was not going to help 
rebuild our infrastructure.
  So the only bipartisan proposal we have before us right now, which is 
not perfect but which is the only bipartisan product, is the Senate 
bill, which passed 74-22.
  At this time, I would be happy to yield 1 minute to the ranking 
member of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I asked for this time only because the chairman referred to opening 
these hearings in my hometown of Beckley, West Virginia, which he did, 
and I appreciate that very much and the many other hearings he held 
across the country. Yet the question is, you have to learn from these 
hearings, and you have to incorporate that which you learn from these 
hearings into the bill that you end up finally writing, and I'm not 
sure that was done from what the gentleman heard from my home State.
  In addition, which the gentleman from Massachusetts referred to, as 
to the bipartisanship of the other body, we all know in this town and 
across the country how hard it is to get that other body to agree on 
anything. Even if it were a resolution saying, ``I love Mother,'' it's 
hard to get 60 votes over there for anything. Yet they got 72 votes for 
a bipartisan transportation bill. They got half of the Republican 
Members of that other body to support a bipartisan transportation bill. 
We have tried, as the gentleman from Massachusetts knows, to bring that 
up in the Rules Committee, to make it in order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. RAHALL. I and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) have tried and tried and tried to 
bring that up and on the floor of the House. Yet we get turned down at 
every turn

[[Page 4491]]

in the road. At every corner in the road, we get turned down in our 
efforts to bring up the bipartisan Senate transportation bill. It is 
not very often that you will find such a measure produced by that other 
body. Yet they've done it this time, and we cannot get it brought up to 
the floor of this body.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, pass the extension.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members to refrain from 
trafficking the well while a Member is under recognition.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), I just want to point out something for my 
colleagues here.
  One of the reasons many of us prefer the Senate bill to even the 
House bill that you brought to the floor and then split up and then 
yanked from the floor is that the Senate bill sustains approximately 
1.9 million jobs on an annual basis. The House Republican bill destroys 
550,000 jobs compared to the current funding level. So what you had 
brought to the floor and then you yanked was a job killer.
  At this point, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon, the ranking member of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, 
Mr. DeFazio.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. This is really a discussion about the future of 
transportation in America, and there is a very basic difference.
  The Republicans are being hung up because there is a substantial 
portion of their caucus that believes--truly believes--there is no 
Federal interest, that we should not have a national transportation 
policy and that it should be devolved to the States.

                              {time}  0950

  Well, that's what this looks like when you devolve to the States. 
Kansas Turnpike, 1956, Oklahoma said they'd build their section. They 
didn't. They were launching cars into Amos Switzer's cornfield for the 
next 8 years. This was about the failure of a 50-State transportation 
policy. They are being hung up by enough people on their side to hold 
up this bill by those who believe that this is the way the country 
should look in the future.
  Now, we want jobs. Even if they could move their H.R. 7--which they 
can't because of this faction--they would cut funding by 20 percent. 
We've got 150,000 bridges on the Federal system, the National Highway 
System, that need repair or replacement. Forty percent of the pavement 
needs substantial redoing, not just resurfacing. There is a $70 billion 
backlog on our legacy transit systems--that's our 20th century system--
and there's no money in this for a 21st century system.
  And this is their vision. Their vision, it's one of two visions. Cut 
20 percent. The Ryan budget actually would cut transportation by 35 
percent from current levels. Or the Flat Earthers who say there's no 
Federal interest in a national transportation system. One of those 
three things is going to come out from their side; a 20 percent cut, a 
35 percent cut, or no program.
  We have an alternative. Let's vote on the Senate bill. When you can 
get 22 Republican Senators to vote to extend the program for 2 years--
and we had one gentleman say, Oh, 2 years is nothing, no equipment 
orders. Well, guess what. I have a list here--and it's just the 
beginnings of a list--of seven State DOTs who have contacted the 
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 
saying a 90-day delay will cost jobs; 40,000 jobs in North Carolina, 
and on down the list. Nevada, Maryland, Michigan, Rhode Island, West 
Virginia, and New Hampshire have all reported in about projects they're 
going to delay or cancel if we do another 90-day extension and we don't 
do the 2-year bill. The 2-year bill is enough certainty for these 
projects to move forward. No, it's not optimal. We need a real 5-year 
bill, but we don't need a 5-year bill that guts or destroys the 
program. But those are the alternatives you are offering us here.
  Just give us one vote, just one vote. Let us vote on the Senate bill, 
which passed as a true bipartisan bill. This is not a bipartisan bill. 
The gentleman from Florida is a good friend. But look, we did not sit 
down and look at this bill and review it. It was presented to us.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, again, I will go back over this list 
because we must have forgotten it since I presented it a few minutes 
ago.
  The Democrats, when they were in control, passed a 1-month extension 
back on October 1, 2009; 1 month, no amendments; 1.5 months a little 
bit later, no amendments; 2.5 months, no amendments; 1 month, no 
amendments; 9 months, no amendments; 2 months, no amendments.
  I'm not sure what they're talking about, Mr. Speaker. Pass the 
extension.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that, I would yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. Speaker, unemployment is going down, but there are people still 
unemployed. Right now we have a Senate bill on transportation, and many 
don't understand what that means. There is a wide gamut of highways and 
mass transit and infrastructure ready to be signed by the President of 
the United States so that millions of Americans can go to work, and 
this body won't allow us to vote for a bill that has already passed the 
Senate.
  Higher funding levels to be able to build, build, build. More jobs, 
1.9 million annualized. Buy America, do I love it. Buy America, making 
sure that we buy the products right here in America so that not only 
are we building with American workers but are also supplied by them. 
Providing guaranteed transit funding for all of America. The crumbling 
transit infrastructure, we're providing for it. And in Houston, Texas, 
we need those moneys, and we need the operational moneys.
  So here's my point: Unemployment is going down. The President is 
moving forward on employing and empowering Americans. And they won't 
put the Senate bill, the bipartisan bill, on the floor.
  Today we need to vote for the jobs here in America. I ask for a 
``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Could I inquire of Mr. McGovern how many more requests 
for time he has?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I have the ranking member of the committee and myself.
  Mr. WEBSTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it's my privilege to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking 
member of the Transportation Committee.
  Mr. RAHALL. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that the extension the 
majority is bringing to the floor this morning is too long, and it will 
do nothing but continue the uncertainty that States and businesses--
small businesses, I might add--have faced since the expiration in the 
last long-term bill in August '09, 2\1/2\ years and eight extensions 
ago.
  Uncertainty is what we are continuing by the passage of this 
extension today, uncertainty among the small business community in this 
country. They need the certainty with which to plan contracts.
  This happens to be the springtime of the year, the time when 
contracts are let and when jobs are planned and when people need to 
know if they're going to be working or not--not 90 days from now. This 
is the contracting season with the work usually done during the summer 
and then concluded by the fall, and the bottom lines are added up.
  We have already heard stories of small businesses that have had to 
cut back from 80 percent of their budget to 40 percent or less because 
they don't know what the Congress is going to do in terms of a long-
term transportation bill. To elaborate on what my colleague from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio) had said, the impacts on our State DOTs of endless 
extensions and the inability to plan for current and future 
transportation needs are very real, very real. And here are just a few 
of the examples:

[[Page 4492]]

  North Carolina has delayed projects totaling $1.2 billion, affecting 
41,000 jobs;
  Nevada and Maryland each report 4,000 jobs are at risk due to 
projects being delayed;
  Michigan has only let 35 percent of its projects, or $180 million 
below its normal activity level, and it's delayed several large 
construction projects;
  Rhode Island has delayed $80 million worth of projects and planning 
for needed safety and structural improvements of a major interchange;
  My home State of West Virginia reports that an extension would result 
in a 10 percent cut in programs, affecting over 1,200 jobs, and the 
State of West Virginia may be forced to shut projects down or delay 
payments to contractors to manage cash flow;
  New Hampshire, Mr. Speaker, will not award contracts on $60 million 
in projects that were recently bid, affecting 1,800 job years, and will 
delay $115 million in bond issuance for the construction of two exits; 
and
  Illinois estimates that the uncertainty posed by stopgap funding 
measures means that 4,500 jobs could be lost and that ongoing 
uncertainty will increase contractor risk and cause higher bids for 
construction projects.
  Without congressional action on the Senate bill, many States in the 
Northeast and Midwest stand to lose an entire construction season. That 
would be a devastating blow to many States as they slowly recover from 
the worst construction downturn since the Great Depression.
  While millions of construction jobs and much-needed infrastructure 
projects hang in the balance, our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have spent weeks driving in circles. They have at least been 
consistent and embraced this theme of uncertainty in their own internal 
deliberations.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close and will reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the 
House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 14, the Moving Ahead for 
Progress in the 21st Century Act. This is the House companion to the 
bipartisan Senate transportation bill that passed in the other body 74-
22.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this House of Representatives is not 
working for the American people. At a time when jobs should be the most 
important priority of this Congress, we have a leadership that talks 
about everything but jobs. And when it comes to jobs, nothing could be 
more important than passing a transportation bill.

                              {time}  1000

  The Republicans brought a terrible bill to the floor--so terrible, 
they couldn't even force their own Members to vote for it. They had to 
pull it. And now we're in this period of delay, delay, delay; kick the 
can down the road, kick the can down the road.
  And what makes this situation unique, I would say to my friend from 
Florida, as compared to previous years, is that we actually have a 
bipartisan bill that has passed one of the Chambers--a bipartisan bill 
in the Senate that passed overwhelmingly, 74-22--authored by Barbara 
Boxer and Jim Inhofe, two polar opposites of the political spectrum. 
They could come together.
  They came together and put the American people first. They put jobs 
first. It wasn't about ideology. It wasn't about getting it perfect for 
either of them. And yet here we are, still fighting over the most 
ridiculous things and bringing the most inconsequential piece of 
legislation to the House floor when we should be focused on passing 
bills like this.
  I'm told we need to do this because we're going on another recess. 
God forbid we stay here and actually work on something that will be 
meaningful for the American people. This bill is so important to our 
economy that, quite frankly, it's worth us staying here a few extra 
days and getting this thing done. Instead, we're going to kick the can 
down the road for 90 days. Next week nothing will be done. We'll come 
back, and then what? Then what will happen?
  Essentially, what we're doing here is we're telling the American 
people that we're not putting them first. We're not putting jobs first. 
For the life of me, I can't understand why this Congress, this 
leadership, which claims to be open, won't even give us a vote. We 
can't even get a vote on the Senate bill. If you want to vote against 
the Senate 2-year extension and vote instead for your 90-day extension, 
fine. But let us have an opportunity to vote on something that will 
mean something to our communities, that will put people back to work. 
Why are you denying us this vote? I have yet to hear anybody say why we 
can't have a vote on this. We had no amendments debated on this House 
floor on the transportation bill. We ought to have this debated.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so a 
little democracy can happen here in the House of Representatives.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts 
has expired.
  Mr. WEBSTER. The situation we find ourselves in is certainly not 
ideal. I've been a strong proponent of a long-term reauthorization of 
Federal transportation programs. Recently, reauthorizations haven't 
been that long-term. But that's more often than not, also. The goal 
everyone is seeking is a long-term reauthorization. I hear that, the 
necessity of it, from all transportation officials all over the 
country, including my own State and in my own district.
  Without the ability to plan over the course of several years--not 3 
months, not 17 months--that lack of certainty has increased the 
operating costs. It increases cost uncertainty, and that is the death 
knell for critical infrastructure projects in this economy.
  As my colleagues have noted, transportation reauthorization bills are 
typically bipartisan affairs. Unfortunately, we don't have a 
bipartisan, bicameral agreement on a viable long-term reauthorization 
yet. But the passage of this brief extension gives us the opportunity 
to once again bring both sides to the table to try to work out a 
collaborative effort and a collaborative solution to this problem. I 
think that's what the American people want. It's our responsibility to 
make sure that happens, and this is the last chance to do it before the 
current legislation expires at midnight on Saturday.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 600 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     14) to reauthorize Federal-aid highway and highway safety 
     construction programs, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after

[[Page 4493]]

     the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this 
     resolution.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. Webster. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 178, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 146]

                               YEAS--237

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--178

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

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Black
     Costello
     Engel
     Filner
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Mack
     Meeks
     Moore
     Paul

[[Page 4494]]


     Rangel
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Speier
     Towns
     Woodall
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1029

  Mr. PASCRELL changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. PEARCE and ROKITA changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 146 I was inadvertently 
detained in a meeting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 146 for H.R. 
4281, I was detained because of meeting with constituents to allow the 
Senate Transportation bill to come to the Floor to save jobs and 
support new construction for transportation and infrastructure. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
   Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 146, I was away from the 
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                              {time}  1030


                             General Leave

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous materials on H.R. 4281.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 600, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 4281) 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 ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 600, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4281

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; RECONCILIATION OF FUNDS; TABLE OF 
                   CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2012''.
       (b) Reconciliation of Funds.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall reduce the amount apportioned or 
     allocated for a program, project, or activity under this Act 
     in fiscal year 2012 by amounts apportioned or allocated 
     pursuant to the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011, 
     Part II (title I of Public Law 112-30) for the period 
     beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on March 31, 2012.
       (c) Table of Contents.--
       Sec. 1. Short title; reconciliation of funds; table of 
           contents.

                     TITLE I--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

       Sec. 101. Extension of Federal-aid highway programs.

             TITLE II--EXTENSION OF HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS

       Sec. 201. Extension of National Highway Traffic Safety 
           Administration highway safety programs.
       Sec. 202. Extension of Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
           Administration programs.
       Sec. 203. Additional programs.

               TITLE III--PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS

       Sec. 301. Allocation of funds for planning programs.
       Sec. 302. Special rule for urbanized area formula grants.
       Sec. 303. Allocating amounts for capital investment grants.
       Sec. 304. Apportionment of formula grants for other than 
           urbanized areas.
       Sec. 305. Apportionment based on fixed guideway factors.
       Sec. 306. Authorizations for public transportation.
       Sec. 307. Amendments to SAFETEA-LU.

                 TITLE IV--HIGHWAY TRUST FUND EXTENSION

       Sec. 401. Extension of trust fund expenditure authority.
       Sec. 402. Extension of highway-related taxes.

                     TITLE I--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

     SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 111 of the Surface Transportation 
     Extension Act of 2011, Part II (Public Law 112-30; 125 Stat. 
     343) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``the period beginning on October 1, 2011, 
     and ending on March 31, 2012,'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on June 30, 2012,'';
       (2) by striking ``\1/2\'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``\3/4\''; and
       (3) in subsection (a) by striking ``March 31, 2012'' and 
     inserting ``June 30, 2012''.
       (b) Use of Funds.--Section 111(c)(3)(B)(ii) of the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2011, Part II (125 Stat. 343) 
     is amended by striking ``$319,500,000'' and inserting 
     ``$479,250,000''.
       (c) Extension of Authorizations Under Title V of SAFETEA-
     LU.--Section 111(e)(2) of the Surface Transportation 
     Extension Act of 2011, Part II (125 Stat. 343) is amended by 
     striking ``the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on March 31, 2012.'' and inserting ``the period 
     beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.''.
       (d) Administrative Expenses.--Section 112(a) of the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2011, Part II (125 Stat. 346) 
     is amended by striking ``$196,427,625 for the period 
     beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on March 31, 2012.'' 
     and inserting ``$294,641,438 for the period beginning on 
     October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.''.

             TITLE II--EXTENSION OF HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS

     SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY 
                   ADMINISTRATION HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS.

       (a) Chapter 4 Highway Safety Programs.--Section 2001(a)(1) 
     of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1519) is amended by striking 
     ``$235,000,000 for fiscal year 2009'' and all that follows 
     through the period at the end and inserting ``$235,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $176,250,000 
     for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on 
     June 30, 2012.''.
       (b) Highway Safety Research and Development.--Section 
     2001(a)(2) of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1519) is amended by 
     striking ``and $54,122,000 for the period beginning on 
     October 1, 2011, and ending on March 31, 2012.'' and 
     inserting ``and $81,183,000 for the period beginning on 
     October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.''.
       (c) Occupant Protection Incentive Grants.--Section 
     2001(a)(3) of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1519) is amended by 
     striking ``$25,000,000 for fiscal year 2006'' and all that 
     follows through the period at the end and inserting 
     ``$25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2011, and 
     $18,750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on June 30, 2012.''.
       (d) Safety Belt Performance Grants.--Section 2001(a)(4) of 
     SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1519) is amended by striking ``and 
     $24,250,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on March 31, 2012.'' and inserting ``and $36,375,000 
     for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on 
     June 30, 2012.''.
       (e) State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements.--
     Section 2001(a)(5) of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1519) is amended 
     by striking ``for fiscal year 2006'' and all that follows 
     through the period at the end and inserting ``for each of 
     fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and $25,875,000 for the period 
     beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.''.
       (f) Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive 
     Grant Program.--Section 2001(a)(6) of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 
     1519) is amended by striking ``$139,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2009'' and all that follows through the period at the end and 
     inserting ``$139,000,000 for each of fiscal years fiscal 
     years 2009 through 2011, and $104,250,000 for the period 
     beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.''.
       (g) National Driver Register.--Section 2001(a)(7) of 
     SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1520) is amended by striking ``and 
     $2,058,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on March 31, 2012.'' and inserting ``and $3,087,000 
     for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on 
     June 30, 2012.''.
       (h) High Visibility Enforcement Program.--Section 
     2001(a)(8) of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1520) is amended by 
     striking ``for fiscal year 2006'' and all that follows 
     through the period at the end and inserting ``for each of 
     fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and $21,750,000 for the period 
     beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.''.
       (i) Motorcyclist Safety.--Section 2001(a)(9) of SAFETEA-LU 
     (119 Stat. 1520) is amended by striking ``$7,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2009'' and all that follows through the period at 
     the end and inserting ``$7,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2009 through 2011, and $5,250,000 for the period beginning on 
     October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.''.
       (j) Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Safety Incentive 
     Grants.--Section 2001(a)(10) of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1520) 
     is amended by striking ``$7,000,000 for fiscal year 2009'' 
     and all that follows through the period at the end and 
     inserting ``$7,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 
     2011, and $5,250,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.''.
       (k) Administrative Expenses.--Section 2001(a)(11) of 
     SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1520) is amended by striking ``and 
     $12,664,000 for the

[[Page 4495]]

     period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on March 31, 
     2012.'' and inserting ``and $18,996,000 for the period 
     beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.''.

     SEC. 202. EXTENSION OF FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY 
                   ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS.

       (a) Motor Carrier Safety Grants.--Section 31104(a)(8) of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(8) $159,000,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.''.
       (b) Administrative Expenses.--Section 31104(i)(1)(H) of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(H) $183,108,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.''.
       (c) Grant Programs.--Section 4101(c) of SAFETEA-LU (119 
     Stat. 1715) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``2011 and $15,000,000 for 
     the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on March 
     31, 2012.'' and inserting ``2011 and $22,500,000 for the 
     period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 
     2012.'';
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``2011 and $16,000,000 for 
     the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on March 
     31, 2012.'' and inserting ``2011 and $24,000,000 for the 
     period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 
     2012.'';
       (3) in paragraph (3) by striking ``2011 and $2,500,000 for 
     the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on March 
     31, 2012.'' and inserting ``2011 and $3,750,000 for the 
     period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 
     2012.'';
       (4) in paragraph (4) by striking ``2011 and $12,500,000 for 
     the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on March 
     31, 2012.'' and inserting ``2011 and $18,750,000 for the 
     period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 
     2012.''; and
       (5) in paragraph (5) by striking ``2011 and $1,500,000 for 
     the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on March 
     31, 2012.'' and inserting ``2011 and $2,250,000 for the 
     period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 
     2012.''.
       (d) High-Priority Activities.--Section 31104(k)(2) of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``2011 and 
     $7,500,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting ``2011 and 
     $11,250,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on June 30, 2012,''.
       (e) New Entrant Audits.--Section 31144(g)(5)(B) of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``and up to 
     $14,500,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting ``and up to 
     $21,750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on June 30, 2012,''.
       (f) Outreach and Education.--Section 4127(e) of SAFETEA-LU 
     (119 Stat. 1741) is amended by striking ``2011 (and $500,000 
     to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and 
     $1,500,000 to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration, for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, 
     and ending on March 31, 2012)'' and inserting ``2011 (and 
     $750,000 to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 
     and $2,250,000 to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration, for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, 
     and ending on June 30, 2012)''.
       (g) Grant Program for Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators.--
     Section 4134(c) of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1744) is amended by 
     striking ``2011 and $500,000 for the period beginning on 
     October 1, 2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' and 
     inserting ``2011 and $750,000 for the period beginning on 
     October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,''.
       (h) Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee.--Section 
     4144(d) of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1748) is amended by striking 
     ``March 31, 2012'' and inserting ``June 30, 2012''.
       (i) Working Group for Development of Practices and 
     Procedures To Enhance Federal-State Relations.--Section 
     4213(d) of SAFETEA-LU (49 U.S.C. 14710 note; 119 Stat. 1759) 
     is amended by striking ``March 31, 2012'' and inserting 
     ``June 30, 2012''.

     SEC. 203. ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS.

       (a) Hazardous Materials Research Projects.--Section 7131(c) 
     of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1910) is amended by striking ``2011 
     and $580,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting ``2011 and $870,000 
     for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on 
     June 30, 2012,''.
       (b) Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act.--Section 4 
     of the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 
     777c) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``2011 and for the period 
     beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' 
     and inserting ``2011 and for the period beginning on October 
     1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,''; and
       (2) in the first sentence of subsection (b)(1)(A) by 
     striking ``2011 and for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting ``2011 
     and for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending 
     on June 30, 2012,''.

               TITLE III--PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS

     SEC. 301. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR PLANNING PROGRAMS.

       Section 5305(g) of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``2011 and for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on March 31, 2012'' and inserting ``2011 and 
     for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on 
     June 30, 2012''.

     SEC. 302. SPECIAL RULE FOR URBANIZED AREA FORMULA GRANTS.

       Section 5307(b)(2) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the paragraph heading and inserting 
     ``Special rule for fiscal years 2005 through 2011 and the 
     period beginning on october 1, 2011, and ending on june 30, 
     2012.--'';
       (2) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``2011 and the period 
     beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' 
     and inserting ``2011 and the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (E)--
       (A) by striking the subparagraph heading and inserting 
     ``Maximum amounts in fiscal years 2008 through 2011 and the 
     period beginning on october 1, 2011, and ending on june 30, 
     2012.--''; and
       (B) in the matter preceding clause (i) by striking ``2011 
     and during the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on March 31, 2012'' and inserting ``2011 and during 
     the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 
     30, 2012''.

     SEC. 303. ALLOCATING AMOUNTS FOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS.

       Section 5309(m) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking the paragraph heading and inserting 
     ``Fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and the period beginning on 
     october 1, 2011, and ending on june 30, 2012.--'';
       (B) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking 
     ``2011 and the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting ``2011 and the 
     period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 
     2012,''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (A)(i) by striking ``2011 and 
     $100,000,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting ``2011 and 
     $150,000,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on June 30, 2012,'';
       (2) in paragraph (6)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``2011 and $7,500,000 
     shall be available for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting ``2011 
     and $11,250,000 shall be available for the period beginning 
     on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``2011 and $2,500,000 
     shall be available for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting ``2011 
     and $3,750,000 shall be available for the period beginning on 
     October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,''; and
       (3) in paragraph (7)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) in the matter preceding clause (i) by striking ``2011 
     and $5,000,000 shall be available for the period beginning on 
     October 1, 2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' and 
     inserting ``2011 and $7,500,000 shall be available for the 
     period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 
     2012,'';
       (ii) in clause (i) by striking ``for each fiscal year and 
     $1,250,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal 
     year and $1,875,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'';
       (iii) in clause (ii) by striking ``for each fiscal year and 
     $1,250,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal 
     year and $1,875,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'';
       (iv) in clause (iii) by striking ``for each fiscal year and 
     $500,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal 
     year and $750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'';
       (v) in clause (iv) by striking ``for each fiscal year and 
     $500,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal 
     year and $750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'';
       (vi) in clause (v) by striking ``for each fiscal year and 
     $500,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal 
     year and $750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'';
       (vii) in clause (vi) by striking ``for each fiscal year and 
     $500,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal 
     year and $750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'';
       (viii) in clause (vii) by striking ``for each fiscal year 
     and $325,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal 
     year and $487,500 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,''; and
       (ix) in clause (viii) by striking ``for each fiscal year 
     and $175,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal 
     year and $262,500 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B) by striking clause (vii) and 
     inserting the following:

[[Page 4496]]

       ``(vii) $10,125,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.'';
       (C) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``and during the period 
     beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' 
     and inserting ``and during the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'';
       (D) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``and not less than 
     $17,500,000 shall be available for the period beginning on 
     October 1, 2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' and 
     inserting ``and not less than $26,250,000 shall be available 
     for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on 
     June 30, 2012,''; and
       (E) in subparagraph (E) by striking ``and $1,500,000 shall 
     be available for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting ``and $2,250,000 
     shall be available for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,''.

     SEC. 304. APPORTIONMENT OF FORMULA GRANTS FOR OTHER THAN 
                   URBANIZED AREAS.

       Section 5311(c)(1)(G) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(G) $11,250,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.''.

     SEC. 305. APPORTIONMENT BASED ON FIXED GUIDEWAY FACTORS.

       Section 5337(g) of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(g) Special Rule for October 1, 2011, Through June 30, 
     2012.--The Secretary shall apportion amounts made available 
     for fixed guideway modernization under section 5309 for the 
     period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 
     2012, in accordance with subsection (a), except that the 
     Secretary shall apportion 75 percent of each dollar amount 
     specified in subsection (a).''.

     SEC. 306. AUTHORIZATIONS FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) Formula and Bus Grants.--Section 5338(b) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking subparagraph (G) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(G) $6,270,423,750 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``$113,500,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $113,500,000 for fiscal year 
     2011, and $56,750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting 
     ``$113,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, 
     and $85,125,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, 
     and ending on June 30, 2012,'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``$4,160,365,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $4,160,365,000 for fiscal 
     year 2011, and $2,080,182,500 for the period beginning on 
     October 1, 2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' and 
     inserting ``$4,160,365,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2011, and $3,120,273,750 for the period beginning on 
     October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'';
       (C) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``$51,500,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $51,500,000 for fiscal year 
     2011, and $25,750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting 
     ``$51,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and 
     $38,625,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on June 30, 2012,'';
       (D) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``$1,666,500,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $1,666,500,000 for fiscal 
     year 2011, and $833,250,000 for the period beginning on 
     October 1, 2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' and 
     inserting ``$1,666,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2011, and $1,249,875,000 for the period beginning on 
     October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'';
       (E) in subparagraph (E) by striking ``$984,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $984,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2011, and $492,000,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting 
     ``$984,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, 
     and $738,000,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, 
     and ending on June 30, 2012,'';
       (F) in subparagraph (F) by striking ``$133,500,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $133,500,000 for fiscal year 
     2011, and $66,750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting 
     ``$133,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, 
     and $100,125,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, 
     and ending on June 30, 2012,'';
       (G) in subparagraph (G) by striking ``$465,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $465,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2011, and $232,500,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting 
     ``$465,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, 
     and $348,750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, 
     and ending on June 30, 2012,'';
       (H) in subparagraph (H) by striking ``$164,500,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $164,500,000 for fiscal year 
     2011, and $82,250,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting 
     ``$164,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, 
     and $123,375,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, 
     and ending on June 30, 2012,'';
       (I) in subparagraph (I) by striking ``$92,500,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $92,500,000 for fiscal year 
     2011, and $46,250,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting 
     ``$92,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and 
     $69,375,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on June 30, 2012,'';
       (J) in subparagraph (J) by striking ``$26,900,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $26,900,000 for fiscal year 
     2011, and $13,450,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting 
     ``$26,900,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and 
     $20,175,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on June 30, 2012,'';
       (K) in subparagraph (K) by striking ``in fiscal year 2006'' 
     and all that follows through ``March 31, 2012,'' and 
     inserting ``for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and 
     $2,625,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on June 30, 2012,'';
       (L) in subparagraph (L) by striking ``in fiscal year 2006'' 
     and all that follows through ``March 31, 2012,'' and 
     inserting ``for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and 
     $18,750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on June 30, 2012,'';
       (M) in subparagraph (M) by striking ``$465,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $465,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2011, and $232,500,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting 
     ``$465,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, 
     and $348,750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, 
     and ending on June 30, 2012,''; and
       (N) in subparagraph (N) by striking ``$8,800,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $8,800,000 for fiscal year 
     2011, and $4,400,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting 
     ``$8,800,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and 
     $6,600,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on June 30, 2012,''.
       (b) Capital Investment Grants.--Section 5338(c)(7) of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(7) $1,466,250,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.''.
       (c) Research and University Research Centers.--Section 
     5338(d) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph 
     (A), by striking ``and 2010, $69,750,000 for fiscal year 
     2011, and $29,500,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting ``through 
     2011, and $33,000,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Additional authorizations.--
       ``(A) Research.--Of amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     under paragraph (1) for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012, the Secretary shall 
     allocate for each of the activities and projects described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (F) of paragraph (1) an amount 
     equal to 47 percent of the amount allocated for fiscal year 
     2009 under each such subparagraph.
       ``(B) University centers program.--
       ``(i) October 1, 2011, through june 30, 2012.--Of the 
     amounts allocated under subparagraph (A)(i) for the 
     university centers program under section 5506 for the period 
     beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012, 
     the Secretary shall allocate for each program described in 
     clauses (i) through (iii) and (v) through (viii) of paragraph 
     (2)(A) an amount equal to 47 percent of the amount allocated 
     for fiscal year 2009 under each such clause.
       ``(ii) Funding.--If the Secretary determines that a project 
     or activity described in paragraph (2) received sufficient 
     funds in fiscal year 2011, or a previous fiscal year, to 
     carry out the purpose for which the project or activity was 
     authorized, the Secretary may not allocate any amounts under 
     clause (i) for the project or activity for fiscal year 2012 
     or any subsequent fiscal year.''.
       (d) Administration.--Section 5338(e)(7) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(7) $74,034,750 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.''.

     SEC. 307. AMENDMENTS TO SAFETEA-LU.

       (a) Contracted Paratransit Pilot.--Section 3009(i)(1) of 
     SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1572) is amended by striking ``2011 and 
     the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on March 
     31, 2012,'' and inserting ``2011 and the period beginning on 
     October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,''.
       (b) Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program.--Section 3011 
     of SAFETEA-LU (49 U.S.C. 5309 note; 119 Stat. 1588) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(5) by striking ``2011 and the period 
     beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on March 31, 2012'' 
     and inserting ``2011 and the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012''; and
       (2) in the second sentence of subsection (d) by striking 
     ``2011 and the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting ``2011 and the 
     period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 
     2012,''.
       (c) Elderly Individuals and Individuals With Disabilities 
     Pilot Program.--Section 3012(b)(8) of SAFETEA-LU (49 U.S.C. 
     5310

[[Page 4497]]

     note; 119 Stat. 1593) is amended by striking ``March 31, 
     2012'' and inserting ``June 30, 2012''.
       (d) Obligation Ceiling.--Section 3040(8) of SAFETEA-LU (119 
     Stat. 1639) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(8) $7,843,708,500 for the period beginning on October 1, 
     2011, and ending on June 30, 2012, of which not more than 
     $6,270,423,750 shall be from the Mass Transit Account.''.
       (e) Project Authorizations for New Fixed Guideway Capital 
     Projects.--Section 3043 of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1640) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by striking ``2011 and the period beginning on October 
     1, 2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting ``2011 
     and the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on 
     June 30, 2012,''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by striking ``2011 and the period beginning on October 
     1, 2011, and ending on March 31, 2012,'' and inserting ``2011 
     and the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on 
     June 30, 2012,''.
       (f) Allocations for National Research and Technology 
     Programs.--Section 3046(c)(2) of SAFETEA-LU (49 U.S.C. 5338 
     note; 119 Stat. 1706) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on June 30, 2012, in amounts equal to 47 percent of 
     the amounts allocated for fiscal year 2009 under each of 
     paragraphs (2), (3), (5), and (8) through (25) of subsection 
     (a).''.

                 TITLE IV--HIGHWAY TRUST FUND EXTENSION

     SEC. 401. EXTENSION OF TRUST FUND EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.

       (a) Highway Trust Fund.--Section 9503 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``April 1, 2012'' in subsections (b)(6)(B), 
     (c)(1), and (e)(3) and inserting ``July 1, 2012''; and
       (2) by striking ``Surface Transportation Extension Act of 
     2011, Part II'' in subsections (c)(1) and (e)(3) and 
     inserting ``Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012''.
       (b) Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund.--Section 
     9504 of such Code is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Surface Transportation Extension Act of 
     2011, Part II'' each place it appears in subsection (b)(2) 
     and inserting ``Surface Transportation Extension Act of 
     2012''; and
       (2) by striking ``April 1, 2012'' in subsection (d)(2) and 
     inserting ``July 1, 2012''.
       (c) Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.--Paragraph 
     (2) of section 9508(e) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``April 1, 2012'' and inserting ``July 1, 2012''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on April 1, 2012.

     SEC. 402. EXTENSION OF HIGHWAY-RELATED TAXES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Each of the following provisions of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``March 31, 
     2012'' and inserting ``June 30, 2012'':
       (A) Section 4041(a)(1)(C)(iii)(I).
       (B) Section 4041(m)(1)(B).
       (C) Section 4081(d)(1).
       (2) Each of the following provisions of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``April 1, 2012'' and inserting ``July 1, 
     2012'':
       (A) Section 4041(m)(1)(A).
       (B) Section 4051(c).
       (C) Section 4071(d).
       (D) Section 4081(d)(3).
       (b) Extension of Tax, etc., on Use of Certain Heavy 
     Vehicles.--Each of the following provisions of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2013'':
       (1) Section 4481(f).
       (2) Subsections (c)(4) and (d) of section 4482.
       (c) Floor Stocks Refunds.--Section 6412(a)(1) of such Code 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``April 1, 2012'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``July 1, 2012'';
       (2) by striking ``September 30, 2012'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``December 31, 2012''; and
       (3) by striking ``July 1, 2012'' and inserting ``October 1, 
     2012''.
       (d) Extension of Certain Exemptions.--Sections 4221(a) and 
     4483(i) of such Code are each amended by striking ``April 1, 
     2012'' and inserting ``July 1, 2012''.
       (e) Extension of Transfers of Certain Taxes.--
       (1) In general.--Section 9503 of such Code is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by striking ``April 1, 2012'' each place it appears in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting ``July 1, 2012'';
       (ii) by striking ``April 1, 2012'' in the heading of 
     paragraph (2) and inserting ``July 1, 2012'';
       (iii) by striking ``March 31, 2012'' in paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``June 30, 2012''; and
       (iv) by striking ``January 1, 2013'' in paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``April 1, 2013''; and
       (B) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``January 1, 2013'' 
     and inserting ``April 1, 2013''.
       (2) Motorboat and small-engine fuel tax transfers.--
       (A) In general.--Paragraphs (3)(A)(i) and (4)(A) of section 
     9503(c) of such Code are each amended by striking ``April 1, 
     2012'' and inserting ``July 1, 2012''.
       (B) Conforming amendments to land and water conservation 
     fund.--Section 201(b) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
     Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l 11(b)) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``April 1, 2013'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``July 1, 2013''; and
       (ii) by striking ``April 1, 2012'' and inserting ``July 1, 
     2012''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on April 1, 2012.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and 
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, first I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, we know why we're here. We are here 
to pass a responsible extension so that people across America can go to 
work, that we can finish a long-term transportation bill, and that we 
can be responsible stewards of the trust which the taxpayers and the 
citizens of America sent us here for.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                   Washington, DC, March 29, 2012.
     Hon. John Mica,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Mica: I am writing concerning H.R. 4281, the 
     ``Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012,'' which is 
     scheduled for floor consideration this week.
       As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has 
     jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Code. Title IV of this 
     bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by extending 
     the current Highway Trust Fund expenditure authority and the 
     associated Federal excise taxes to June 30, 2012. However, in 
     order to expedite this legislation for floor consideration, 
     the Committee will forgo action on this bill. This is being 
     done with the understanding that it does not in any way 
     prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of 
     conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or 
     similar legislation.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 4281, and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Dave Camp,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
           Infrastructure,
                                   Washington, DC, March 29, 2012.
     Hon. Dave Camp,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     4281, the ``Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012.'' 
     The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure recognizes 
     the Committee on Ways and Means has a jurisdictional interest 
     in H.R. 4281, and I appreciate your effort to facilitate 
     consideration of this bill.
       I also concur with you that forgoing action on this bill 
     does not in any way prejudice the Committee on Ways and Means 
     with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this bill 
     or similar legislation in the future, and I would support 
     your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate number of 
     conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this 
     legislation.
       I will include our letters on H.R. 4281 in the 
     Congressional Record during floor consideration of the bill. 
     Again, I appreciate your cooperation regarding this 
     legislation and I look forward to working with the Committee 
     on Ways and Means as the bill moves through the legislative 
     process.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John L. Mica,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the pending legislation before this body today, at the 
eleventh hour, as a result of a tortuous process--excuse me, it's not 
been a process at all, but rather a series of stalled starts, retreats, 
and the failure by the Republican leadership to seize upon a reasonable 
solution to reauthorizing our Nation's transportation surface programs.
  At first, the Speaker stated this was a jobs bill. Almost as soon as 
the words were out of his mouth, he countered himself by saying that 
investing in America's infrastructure has nothing to do with jobs at 
all. Nothing to do with jobs at all.
  What came about then was a scheme to produce a 5-year reauthorization 
bill

[[Page 4498]]

coupled with that universal House Republican answer to all ills, which 
is to open up ANWR to drilling, drill, baby, drill, and then attempt to 
pay for some of the proposal on the backs of working-class Americans.
  The surface transportation portion, H.R. 7, proposed to slash $15.8 
billion in highway funding to the States, destroying 550,000 American 
family-wage jobs over the coming years. Investment in roads, highways, 
and bridges would retrench in all but five States.
  The Republican leadership also proposed to shift public transit 
revenue to highways and then bail out transit with a one-time transfer 
of $40 billion from the general fund, while robbing middle class 
Americans to pay for the shuffle.
  This is an idea that would make even the most hardened con artist 
green with envy. It is a shell game. It's a shell game, but it has no 
place in the hallowed Halls of Congress. It is a shell game, and it is 
a sham.
  But it was not Democrats who took this ill-advised proposal down; it 
was Republicans. Over the course of 6 weeks, they caucused, they 
corralled, and they contorted themselves in trying to obtain 218 votes 
to pass H.R. 7. And they could not, which brings us to this week, when 
the Republican leadership decided to bring up a 90-day extension bill 
under suspension of the rules in the form of H.R. 4239.
  But when this legislation was called up on Tuesday, it was done so as 
a 60-day extension. The House debated this measure. I asked for a vote, 
and the vote was postponed. As far as I know, that request for a vote 
is still pending, even as we debate a different bill now.
  Then another curious thing happened. According to the publication 
Transportation Weekly yesterday, and I quote:

       After more discussion among themselves, Republican leaders 
     order Mica to reintroduce the 60-day version of his extension 
     as a stand-alone bill, which can then be considered by the 
     Rules Committee.

  That bill is H.R. 4276.
  The Transportation Weekly article yesterday then noted, and I quote 
again:

       After still more discussion among themselves, Republican 
     leaders order Mica to reintroduce the 90-day version of the 
     extension as a stand-alone bill, which can then be considered 
     by the Rules Committee as well.

  Confused? Anybody confused?
  That bill is now H.R. 4281, which we are currently debating. Who 
knows what we'll be debating the next hour.
  And yet, during the course of last and this week, the Republican 
leadership could have scheduled the bipartisan, non-controversial, 
Senate-passed bill for consideration by this body. It could have been 
brought up any time by the Speaker, passed by this body in a bipartisan 
fashion, signed into law.
  I make these points to illustrate the fast and loose means by which 
the Republican leadership has been dealing with an extremely serious 
matter. Instead they're spinning their wheels in pursuit of the ill-
conceived H.R. 7, which slashes investments in Federal aid to highways 
by $15.8 billion from current levels at a time when more spending is 
needed to address structurally deficient bridges and maintain our 
highway system.
  H.R. 7 reduces highway funding to all but five States.
  H.R. 7 guts America's commitment to transit by a sleight-of-hand move 
that siphons away a portion of gas taxes which are dedicated to transit 
funding and instead proposes to fund transit with general revenue funds 
which is offset on the backs of workers.
  H.R. 7 contains a bogus pay-for by linking opening up ANWR and 
changes in OCS oil and gas leasing, which only produce $4.3 billion 
over a 10-year period.
  H.R. 7 continues to send American dollars and jobs overseas through 
the inclusion of a ``Buy America Light'' requirement that does not 
fully cover transit rolling stock, Amtrak, and the Federal railroad 
loan program, while failing to crack down on DOT's waiver authority.
  H.R. 7 places a roadblock on public participation in reviewing 
transportation projects by limiting and, in certain cases, outright 
waiving NEPA.
  And H.R. 7 eliminates OSHA protections for hazmat workers and allows 
bad actors to continue to receive hazmat compliance exemptions.
  So this body could have considered and passed the other body's 
bipartisan bill, which passed that body by a vote of 74-22. That's half 
of the Republican Members in the other body, and we know how difficult 
it is to get that other body to get 60 votes to cut off debate on any 
resolution or any bill. Even one saying ``I love Mother'' would be hard 
to pass in that other body. Yet, for a transportation bill, they came 
up with 72 votes.
  That bill continues current funding levels, sustaining approximately 
1.9 million jobs. The States will receive $3.8 billion more in highway 
construction funding than H.R. 7 over the course of 2 years.
  The Senate bipartisan bill eliminates many of the gaping loopholes in 
current law by American requirements, loopholes that are being 
exploited by foreign competitors like China, who are stealing American 
jobs.
  The Senate bipartisan bill does not contain poison pills like H.R. 7, 
such as provisions to strip OSHA requirements for hazmat workers and 
efforts to finance highway construction on the backs of middle class 
workers.
  I would note, Mr. Speaker, that we have tried, we have tried by every 
means available to us on this side of the aisle, to have this Senate-
passed bill brought up for consideration in the House, and not just 
through procedural motions. Yesterday, Representatives DeFazio, Corrine 
Brown, Tim Bishop, and myself submitted that measure to the Rules 
Committee, asking them to make it in order as an amendment to the 
pending measure so we could vote on it today. We were denied.
  Instead, we are on the floor today with the Republican leadership 
proposal to kick the can down the road for another 90 days so they can 
try to convince their conference to support something they have not 
been able to do over the last 6 weeks.

                              {time}  1040

  The fact of the matter is we need to be investing more, not less, if 
we are to keep pace with China, India, and our other international 
competitors. Today China spends 9 percent of its GDP per year on 
infrastructure. India spends 5 percent. The U.S. only invests 1.9 
percent.
  While our competitors are moving forward, the inability of the 
Republican leadership to reach out across party lines to House 
Democrats to address this bill is leaving America stuck in a ditch and 
putting American businesses at a disadvantage with companies around the 
world.
  In 2008, a blue ribbon commission established as a result of the last 
multiyear surface transportation bill reported that the Federal 
Government must invest a minimum of $62 billion a year just to maintain 
the Nation's roads and bridges in their present inadequate condition.
  This bill comes nowhere close to that. Instead, it leads America down 
the opposite path. President Lyndon B. Johnson once said: ``In large 
measure, America's history is a history of her transportation.''
  I say let us seize the moment and move forward without procedural 
gimmicks, without partisan brinksmanship, and do what is right for 
America, for the American worker, for American families, and for 
American values.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, and then I would 
like to yield 2 minutes to the chair of the Highway Subcommittee, Mr. 
Duncan.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, let's just deal with the facts. The fact 
is that the Democrats had six amendments--1 month, 1.5 months, 2.5 
months, 1 month, 9 months, and 2 months--when they controlled the House 
of Representatives and the Senate by huge majorities, and the White 
House. They couldn't even get it through committee. They could not get 
it through committee. These are the facts.

                   List of Transportation Extensions

       Extension #1: A Democratic controlled House passed 
     extension with a duration of 1-month from 10/01/2009 to 10/
     31/2009.
       Extension #2: A Democratic controlled House passed 
     extension with a duration of 1.5-months from 11/01/2009 to 
     12/18/2009.

[[Page 4499]]

       Extension #3: A Democratic controlled House passed 
     extension with a duration of 2.5-months from 12/19/2009 to 2/
     28/2010.
       Extension #4: A Democratic controlled House passed 
     extension with a duration of 1-month from 3/01/2010 to 3/28/
     2010.
       Extension #5: A Democratic controlled House passed 
     extension with a duration of 9-months from 3/29/2010 to 12/
     31/2010.
       Extension #6: A Democratic controlled House passed 
     extension with a duration of 2-months from 1/01/2011 to 3/04/
     2011.
       Extension #7: A Republican controlled House passed 
     extension with a duration of 7-months from 3/05/2011 to 9/30/
     2011.
       Extension #8: A Republican controlled House passed 
     extension with a duration of 6-months from 10/01/2011 to 3/
     31/2012.

  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say that Chairman Mica has performed great 
leadership of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and he 
has tried in every way possible to work with everybody he possibly 
could. His task has been made much more difficult by the rule 
prohibiting earmarks. And as he just mentioned, the other side couldn't 
bring a bill out of committee and to this floor, a highway bill, in the 
last Congress when they controlled the House, the Senate, the White 
House, and still allowed earmarks. So we're in a very difficult 
situation at this point, and that's why we're here today asking for 
this 90-day extension.
  H.R. 4281 extends the surface transportation programs through June 30 
at funding levels consistent with fiscal year 2012. The transportation 
appropriations bill passed in November. This extension is clean and 
does not add any policy provisions. Without this extension, the transit 
and highway safety programs are set to expire this Saturday. This 
legislation will allow these programs to continue to operate as the 
spring construction season kicks off.
  If Congress fails to pass this extension by Saturday, it will cost 
the highway trust fund about $1 billion a week in lost revenue and put 
the brakes on 134,000 highway projects and 5,700 transit projects 
across the Nation. States that seek to be reimbursed for their Federal 
aid for highway and transit projects would be unable to receive Federal 
funds for the work they have completed. The Federal Highway 
Administration would furlough 3,500 of their employees, and work on 
environmental permits and project approvals for new construction 
projects would come to a screeching halt. Over 280,000 construction 
workers, Mr. Speaker, working on highway and bridge projects today 
could lose their jobs if Congress cannot pass this extension.
  This country simply cannot afford a loss of such a magnitude during 
our tenuous road to economic recovery. Time magazine has a cover 
article this week describing our recovery as the wimpy recovery, and 
it's based primarily on pent-up demand.
  We need to pass this extension so that we can work toward completing 
and finalizing H.R. 7, our long-term authorization reform bill.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the distinguished ranking member 
on our Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. This could or should be the most important jobs-creating 
bill in America, investing in our Nation's infrastructure, making our 
Nation more competitive in the international economy, more efficiently 
moving goods and people. The current system, a legacy of the 1950s, is 
falling apart.
  The Republicans are telling us that this 90-day extension will be 
good for America. It will not be good for America because we have a 
better option before us. A bill passed by the United States Senate, a 
bipartisan bill, with 22 Republican Senators, half the Republican 
Senators supporting that bill, which would give us more funding without 
creating deficit and create more jobs than their pie-in-the-sky bill, 
H.R. 7, which they can't even get out of their own caucus here, because 
their own caucus is split.
  There are a number of Republicans who do not believe we should have a 
national transportation system. They want to devolve it back to the 
States, go back to the pre-1950s.
  The Speaker was forced to say to his caucus:

       We are not making the claim that spending taxpayer money on 
     transportation projects creates jobs. We don't make that 
     claim, and we won't make that claim. What makes this a jobs 
     bill is that it removes government barriers that are getting 
     in the way of economic growth.

  That's not what all the people engaged in rebuilding the Nation's 
infrastructure think. They think investment equals jobs. If we do this 
90-day extension, the Association of General Contractors says that 
States will cut back from 50 percent to 40 percent of their planned 
projects because of the uncertainty created by this 90-day extension. 
We're going to lose half of the proposed projects this construction 
season around America, tens of thousands of jobs, needed investment 
because they've got a bunch of bozos in their caucus that don't believe 
we should have a national transportation system. They're fighting among 
themselves.
  Give us a vote. Let us vote on the Senate bill.
  It doesn't create deficit. It does create jobs. It does give us the 
investment we need.
  The gentleman who spoke just before me, the gentleman from Tennessee, 
who is a good friend, under the bill they're trying to pry out of their 
caucus, which the Secretary of Transportation called the worst 
transportation bill in history--and by the way, the Secretary is a 
Republican and served in this House for more than a decade. He says 
it's the worst bill ever in terms of policy and lack of investment. In 
the case of the gentleman from Tennessee, their H.R. 7, if they could 
get it out of caucus--and they can't--it would cost his State $444 
million over 5 years. That's lost investment. That's more than 10,000 
jobs lost.
  We have an opportunity today to take up a 2-year bill and provide 
certainty not only for construction jobs and for engineering jobs, but 
for people who manufacture construction equipment, for people with Made 
in America requirements who construct transportation equipment, our 
buses, our light rail, our streetcars, all the things that need 
building and replacing just for the existing system, let alone 
beginning to have a vision of building out a 21st century system. Our 
competitor nations around the world are doing it.
  They are so dyspeptic on their side, they're arguing over whether or 
not the Federal Government should be involved in transportation. That's 
nuts. We settled that debate 60 years ago when Dwight David Eisenhower 
said this doesn't work. We have States building turnpikes that end in 
farmers' fields because the adjoining State couldn't afford to build 
their section of the turnpike. He said we need a coordinated national 
transportation policy.
  We have an opportunity to improve on the one we have today by passing 
the Senate bill that does do some streamlining, it does do things that 
will help us spend the money more efficiently, and it maintains current 
levels of spending instead of reductions, and it does not have the 
uncertainty of a 90-day bill that is going to cost us half of the 
proposed projects this construction season.
  Give us that chance. Let us have that vote. What are you afraid of? 
Are you afraid it might pass?
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, I don't think it is appropriate that 
Members of my conference be referred to as bozos. I think that we have 
dedicated Americans, ladies and gentlemen, who serve this country and 
the Congress well.
  The gentleman who just spoke on September 23, 2009, said:

       Don't play politics with investments in our infrastructure, 
     don't play politics with the economy, don't play politics 
     with people's jobs, don't bring America to a screeching halt 
     on October 1 and walk away from your obligation to extend 
     this program.

  Mr. Speaker, when they controlled the House in huge numbers, they 
could not pass that extension, nor could they pass, I'm told, any 
extension freestanding.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 4500]]



                              {time}  1050

  Mr. RAHALL. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I still agree with that quote. We shouldn't play 
politics. It has never been a partisan issue. You've made it into a 
partisan issue, and that quote was when you were opposing a 90-day 
extension and when I was saying don't play politics by opposing a 90-
day extension at that point in time. But we're too far down the road. 
We didn't have an alternative then. We have an alternative now. Pass 
the Senate bill.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to address 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. MICA. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished ranking member on the House Education and the Workforce 
Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Americans all over the 
country know that our economy is improving, that the unemployment 
number is coming down, that people are finding jobs, that small 
businesses are doing better; but it's a very fragile recovery. That 
infrastructure bill that is waiting in the Senate, which was passed 74-
22, is key to continuing the economic growth in this country for 
businesses, for families, and for people seeking jobs who have been 
laid off for a very long time.
  But now what we see here today is a conscious decision. Rather than 
give the Obama administration and President Obama any help with the 
continuing growth in the economy, which these jobs would mean if we had 
a long-term extension of the highway bill for all across America, 
they've decided that they'll do a short-term extension. This is a party 
that has complained about uncertainty in the economy, about uncertainty 
in the business community--with a 90-day extension. Cities, counties, 
and State governments are going to have to rethink what they contract 
for--with a 90-day extension. There are those in the leadership who 
have already said, And then we'll need another 90 days. This 
construction season will be gone for equipment manufacturers, for 
engineers, for construction workers, all across the country in our 
local communities, who are in desperate need of infrastructure 
improvement.
  But they've made a decision that they're going to fight President 
Obama with the jobs that belong to middle class Americans all across 
the country--jobs that people need today to feed their families. 
They've made a decision: inject uncertainty. Those contracts and those 
jobs won't be met, and that will somehow be a victory for the 
Republicans in the House, but it will be a disaster for American 
families, for American workers, and for American businesses.
  This kind of cold-blooded, political calculation to use the jobs of 
the American working people as political cannon fodder for your agenda 
in order to defeat the Obama administration is outrageous.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. It should be rejected by your party, 
and it should be rejected by my party because, when you put American 
people's lives and their well-being and their family incomes and the 
economic growth in our communities on the line for this kind of 
partisanship, you should stop it. You should stop it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, you should stop banging 
the gavel, because this is a critical issue for the American people, 
for their families, for their livelihoods.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is no longer 
recognized.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield, at this time, 2 minutes 
to the chair of the Railroads Subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. I wish the gentleman from California would have shown 
that kind of passion when the stimulus bill was passed 2 years ago and 
had come to the floor and said that the stimulus bill should be an 
infrastructure bill. There was only a very, very small portion--I think 
about $68 billion of that $800 billion stimulus package--that went to 
the infrastructure of this country. Where was the gentleman when that 
outrage was happening?
  If you want real stimulation--and we believe this stimulates the 
economy in that this helps put concrete on our roads and repairs our 
bridges and puts people to work--this bill will do that, a 5-year bill. 
An 18-month bill is not going to put any kind of certainty out there. I 
correct myself. It will create certainty. The certainty is that it will 
bankrupt the trust fund in less than 2 years. Our bill that we've been 
trying to pass here, a 5-year bill, that's what the people back in the 
States want.
  To the gentleman from Oregon, I'm surprised. He has been a long-time 
member of the T&I Committee and knows that a long-term transportation 
bill is better for the States, that it's better for the folks who build 
roads and employ people, and that that's what we need here. That's what 
we're trying to get at.
  Mr. RAHALL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I will not yield to the gentleman from West Virginia. I 
know the gentleman has plenty of time, and he can respond on his time.
  This 90-day extension is a clean extension. It gives us the time to 
work on a 5-year bill. As I said, members on the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee know that a 5-year bill is something that 
would put certainty out there to the folks in the States--to the folks 
who are going to buy trucks, who are going to hire people, who are 
going to expand their businesses to build and rebuild these bridges and 
roads throughout the country. It doesn't make any sense to do an 18-
month extension, which is basically what the Senate's bill does, and 
along the way bankrupt the trust fund.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MICA. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Our 5-year bill has significant reforms in it that will 
shorten the timeframe to build a highway. We all sit around here and we 
talk about streamlining government. That's what this bill does. It 
eliminates departments and consolidates departments in transportation, 
and it shortens the timeline of 14 to 15 years down to 7 to 8 years.
  Now, it's tough to quantify the savings, but we all know that time is 
money. All of us have seen these projects that go on year, after year, 
after year. They balloon and they have cost overruns. This bill is 
going to solve a lot of those problems, so we need to pass this 90-day 
extension in order to be able to continue to work on a real solution to 
our infrastructure.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania that the bill he is promoting, H.R. 7, means to his home 
State of Pennsylvania a cut of $948 million, and it destroys some 
32,983 good-paying jobs. For fiscal year 2016, in the State of 
Pennsylvania, the level of funding will be less than that for fiscal 
year 2004. That's what H.R. 7 would mean to the gentleman's home State 
of Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RAHALL. You would not yield to me. I will not yield to you.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes now to the gentleman from 
Missouri, a valued member of our committee, Mr. Carnahan.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. I rise today in strong opposition to yet another lame, 
shortsighted extension of our surface transportation system.
  I thank Nick Rahall and Peter DeFazio for their staunch support of a 
real transportation-jobs bill.
  This kick-the-can-down-the-road extension fails--it fails--to make 
progress in rebuilding America just at the time when our construction 
season is starting off this year. Our States and our local governments 
need certainty

[[Page 4501]]

to invest, to plan, to build America's infrastructure; and this ninth--
yes, ninth--short-term extension only extends the uncertainty this 
Congress has repeatedly created.
  In a bipartisan fashion, by a vote of 74-22--rare in the Senate these 
days--they passed a responsible 2-year, 2 million jobs bill that is a 
better path for the American people and the economy. This includes an 
estimated 36,500 jobs in my home State of Missouri. The construction 
sector and especially our building trades have been particularly hard-
hit by this recession, with 1.9 million jobs lost at the depth of the 
recession. Currently, there are 1.4 million unemployed construction 
workers. Let's put them back to work.
  I sit on the Transportation Committee where, 6 weeks ago, the 
Republican majority passed out a completely partisan transportation 
bill for the first time in history. Their bill would kill over a half a 
million jobs and cut investments in 45 States and in the District of 
Columbia, and it was dead on arrival in this House. So it is no 
surprise that here, 6 weeks later, we have not seen any action on the 
floor, because there is no support for their job-killing proposal. Now 
we're delaying again with yet another extension instead of taking up a 
true compromise passed by our colleagues in the Senate.

                              {time}  1100

  I was proud to be an original cosponsor when the Senate bill was 
introduced in the House as H.R. 14, and it's time the House take up 
that bipartisan bill. Let's pass it. Let's send it to the President.
  Infrastructure is a national and urgent priority, and this body needs 
to start treating it that way. Infrastructure is one of the few areas 
where virtually everyone except the isolated, out-of-touch Republican 
majority agrees on what we need to do.
  From the Chamber of Commerce to the AFL-CIO to everyone's 
transportation leaders back home, let's pass this bipartisan bill. 
Let's send it to the President's desk before the current transportation 
programs expire. It will bring the certainty that State and local 
governments need, that our construction industry, that our building 
trades are yearning for, are hungry for. They are hungry to go back to 
work.
  I call on my colleagues to reject yet another short-term extension 
and pass H.R. 14, a 2-year, 2 million jobs bill to rebuild our 
crumbling infrastructure and put Americans back to work.
  Mr. MICA. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman.
  I dispute the gentleman from West Virginia's figures. Are we going to 
spend less? Yes, quite possibly. But we have to live within our means. 
And by streamlining, I believe we'll spend that money out, and we'll 
create more jobs by streamlining.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) at this time, a valued member of 
our committee and the sponsor of H.R. 14, the other body's bipartisan 
transportation bill, which is twice as good as H.R. 7.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me see if I have this right. Our Republican 
colleagues are telling us that we should forget about the 15 months 
that have passed since they started crafting the highway bill. They're 
telling us we should forget about the last 6 weeks during which time 
their bill, H.R. 7, imploded and the bipartisan MAP-21 bill passed the 
Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. Now they're telling the 
American people that they simply need 3 additional months to find the 
money and shape a policy--an effort that thus far has eluded them--that 
can garner a majority of votes in the House and overcome the 60-vote 
threshold in the Senate and be signed by the President of the United 
States.
  It gets better. On the very same day that they make this outrageous 
argument, they will vote for a Republican budget that slashes 
investment in transportation infrastructure by 46 percent, a 46 percent 
reduction in investment in infrastructure.
  Now, if they're serious about this vote, if they're serious about 
seeing this destructive level of funding enacted into law, how can we 
take them seriously when they talk about a 5- year bill? They talk 
about certainty. How can we give the American people or the 
construction industry or construction workers certainty when they say, 
Just give us 90 more days and we'll craft a 5-year bill, but in the 
meantime, we want to cut highway funding by 46 percent? These don't 
line up. No reasonable person can take that seriously.
  To make it even worse, at the end of today, we're going to adjourn 
the House for 2 weeks. Asking for a 90-day extension, but in the first 
2 weeks of that 90-day extension, they're going to adjourn the House 
and go home. And they're going to do that while construction workers 
are wondering where their next paycheck is coming from. They're 
wondering how they're going to be able to provide for their families. 
This is unconscionable.
  If Republicans want 90 more days, we should stay here and work 
through the issues with the bipartisan Senate bill MAP-21, H.R. 14, 
here in the House as the basis for these discussions. We know we can 
get it through the Senate; and I am confident that if Republicans are 
released by their leadership to vote for it, they'll vote for it here 
in the House.
  Let's pass H.R. 14.
  Mr. MICA. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from West 
Virginia has 9 minutes. The gentleman from Florida has 23 minutes.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes at this 
time to the distinguished gentlelady from the District of Columbia, 
Eleanor Holmes Norton, the ranking member on our Economic Development 
and Public Buildings Subcommittee.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The American people will be puzzled by why we can't get out what has 
traditionally been the most popular bill, the transportation bill. And 
they will hope that we're not on a road to the 20-plus extensions that 
we had with the FAA bill. It won't do to say, like two kids: You did 
it, too; therefore, we can do it.
  None of us should have done it.
  But in any case, we know we don't have to do it this time because the 
Senate has passed a bill that we could pass as well. So we know the 
compromise can happen because they've passed a bill with more than two-
thirds of their own house, including many Republicans, signing on.
  Compromise is possible if you believe in compromise, and I'm afraid 
that this bill shows that we have a majority that does not. They are on 
record saying that they must have 218 votes from their caucus alone. 
That says to the American people, we need to pass a bill that will have 
only people from our party voting for it. But, the Senate has passed a 
bill with both parties compromising. Which is the party that does not 
believe in compromise? You always have to compromise.
  There is not a whole lot of difference in the amount of money in 
these bills; $52 billion per year for the House, $54 billion per year 
for the Senate.
  The problem is poison pills. The problem is not treating the 
transportation bill as it has always been treated, as a bipartisan 
bill. The problem is not caring that you are effecting the recovery if 
you pass a series of 90-day bills.
  We should be speeding the recovery instead of hanging, clinging to a 
bill that would kill half a million jobs.
  It's time to compromise. This side is holding out its hand for a 
compromise. We need colleagues on the other side to hold out theirs.
  Mr. MICA. I am going to continue to reserve the balance of my time 
and will close at the appropriate time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I just want to reiterate the point I made earlier. 
Outside of a minority of their caucus, I believe

[[Page 4502]]

a majority of the United States House of Representatives believes that 
Federal investment--using taxpayer dollars without creating deficit--
that Federal investment and rebuilding our national infrastructure, the 
150,000 bridges on the National Highway System that need substantial 
repair or replacement--the steel that goes into those bridges is made 
in America. The workers are American workers. The engineers are 
American engineers. The $60 billion backlog in our existing transit 
systems, let alone giving Americans more fuel-efficient transit 
options, $60 billion. Buses made in America, light railcars made in 
America, these are manufacturing jobs, engineering jobs, high-tech 
jobs. These are not just construction jobs.
  The construction industry, itself, is devastated with double-digit 
unemployment. Passing this 90-day extension, according to the 
Association of General Contractors, a very Republican-leaning 
organization--80 percent of their political contributions go to the 
Republicans, so they are not partisan to our side of the aisle--they 
say that it is going to mean the States will go to a 40 or 50 percent 
reduction in their projects this summer because they are not assured 
beyond that 90 days that they're going to get their Federal 
reimbursements. Many States, unlike this body and unlike the Federal 
Government, have constitutional balanced budget requirements, something 
we should have nationally. But that's a debate for another day.
  The point is that this temporary extension does cost us jobs, and the 
bill we'll vote on later today, the Ryan budget, would actually reduce 
transportation investments by 56 percent from current levels, which 
isn't even dealing with the already deteriorated infrastructure and is 
not putting people back to work.

                              {time}  1110

  So there's this kind of a mixed message on their side. They say, 
Well, just do the 90 days and then we'll do H.R. 7. Well, H.R. 7 will 
reduce spending and cost half a million jobs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. The budget they're going to vote on later today would 
reduce spending by 56 percent on transportation. That is mind-boggling 
in the face of what confronts our Nation, the challenges around the 
world, and the need for jobs.
  There are people on their side of the aisle that just say, The 
government can't create jobs. They're hung up on this semantic thing. 
No, the government isn't creating the jobs. The government is investing 
taxpayer dollars without borrowing to let out private contracts to the 
lowest and best bidders to build these projects with all products made 
in America--the strongest Made in America requirement.
  So you can't tell me those things don't create jobs. Those are 
investments. They create jobs. Consumption and tax cuts don't create 
jobs. They want more tax cuts instead of investment in America. That is 
so wrong.
  Let us vote on the bipartisan Senate bill. If 22 Republican Senators 
can support that bill, which would give us 2 years of stability, we 
ought to have a chance to vote on it in this House.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Gerry Connolly.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my friend from West Virginia.
  Madam Speaker, America's commuters and businesses want us to speed up 
transportation improvements. However, the House Republicans have 
offered only a speed bump. We face a transportation crisis, with 
bridges and roadways crumbling, millions of Americans stuck in 
gridlock, and transit improvements languishing.
  We've known that the transportation authorization lapses on March 31, 
severely jeopardizing projects and jobs in every one of our States. The 
transportation vote today is nothing more than a 3-month Band-Aid. The 
Republican plan was rejected on a bipartisan basis because it 
disinvests in America, cutting $361 million in my home State of 
Virginia alone.
  America needs a real transportation plan: a plan that ensures that 
States and localities don't shut up projects this Sunday; a plan that 
creates jobs, putting the hard-hit construction industry back to work. 
Thankfully, there is such a plan. It's bipartisan. This month, the 
Senate passed a 2-year transportation plan by a vote of 74 22, 
including half of the Republicans present.
  I urge Republican leadership to bring forward the bipartisan Senate 
bill. It's time to get America moving again.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I am honored to yield the customary 1 
minute to the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, the 
gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for his tireless efforts on behalf of America's workers and 
for his attempts to bring to the floor a bipartisan transportation 
bill, as has been the custom in our House and as we do have the 
opportunity to do by taking up the Senate bill.
  The bill in the Senate has bipartisan support--74, plus one who was 
absent but voting for the bill. Seventy-five Members of the Senate 
support that legislation. It is bipartisan. It creates jobs. It is 
worthy of our support.
  It has the cosponsorship of the chair and the ranking member of the 
committee, from Chairwoman Barbara Boxer to Ranking Member Inhofe, a 
wide array of philosophical thinking, and all of it coming together 
around a bipartisan initiative.
  The American people have a right to know why the Republicans in the 
Senate, the Democrats in the Senate, the President of the United 
States, and the House Democrats all support this bipartisan bill while 
the Republicans in the House are odd man out. It calls to mind when 
there was an odd man out on the payroll tax cut in December, when all 
the parties had come together in a bipartisan way.
  But what is dangerous about what is happening here today is that this 
initiative, this kick-the-can-down-the-road, this my-way-or-no-highway-
bill attitude is costing jobs. I'm sure that they have been reviewed--
41,000 in North Carolina; 4,500 in Illinois; 4,000 in Maryland; and the 
list goes on and on--just because of the delay and the uncertainty that 
is injected into the system. This costs the taxpayers more, and small 
businesses suffer because they cannot proceed with contracts and the 
rest to go forward. And it is a job-loser, as I mentioned.
  So this has nothing to recommend it except to be explained by the 
fact that the Republicans can't even bring their own transportation 
bill to the floor and pass it. Their own transportation bill is not a 
good bill, but at least it would take us to conference. They can't vote 
for their own bill. I don't know how it happens that they have a bill 
that they can't support.
  But in addition to not being able to support their own bill--and it's 
interesting that the budget and transportation are on the floor at the 
same time--they have this bill, and yet in the budget that they are 
going to be voting on today, they have cut transportation funding in 
half: from $90 billion to $46 billion. That's $44 billion worth of 
jobs, promotion of commerce, improving the quality of life of the 
American people, building the infrastructure of America, and that means 
mass transit and all the rest of that. Cut that in half. Oh, and by the 
way, give a tax break of over $300,000 to the wealthiest people in 
America. Wealthy people get off fine. Middle class people pay. Small 
businesses pay. The taxpayer pays. Job-seekers and workers pay the 
price.
  So I think it's really important to understand what the bipartisan 
National Governors Association has said:

       A string of short-term extensions will only increase 
     uncertainty for State and local governments and the private 
     sector.

  So, again, I call the House back to its bipartisanship on this 
legislation. The distinguished chairman, Mr. Mica, has been part of 
that bipartisanship in the past, and now they come up with a bill that 
the Republican Secretary of Transportation says is a job-loser and is 
dangerous to public safety. It's the

[[Page 4503]]

worst bill he's seen in his 35 years of public service, and his public 
service has been in this field. Again, it departs from bipartisanship.
  So I urge my colleagues to not aid and abet the Republicans in going 
down this path that is not a good one, but to urge them to bring up the 
Senate bill. It can go to the President's desk today, putting people 
back to work immediately.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has 2 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida has 23 minutes.
  Mr. RAHALL. I guess it's not very popular on his side of the aisle. 
He doesn't seem to have many speakers coming over. I haven't noticed 
many members of his committee to speak in favor of this extension 
today.
  I am prepared to close. I would take some time from the distinguished 
chairman, if he'd be willing to yield me some of his time.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. That's about all we're getting out of H.R. 7, too.
  Madam Speaker, if the other side were serious about creating jobs, 
they would have worked in a bipartisan fashion in this body, as the 
other body did, to build a bill that could pass both bodies of the 
Congress and be signed into law. As the distinguished Democratic leader 
has just said, everybody is on board except the leadership of the House 
of Representatives on the Republican side.
  Just as this Congress has done so many times before--and I have been 
in this body over three decades, involved in every transportation bill 
we've done over that time--every transportation bill we've done has 
been in a bipartisan fashion, passing this body by overwhelming 
margins.

                              {time}  1120

  Instead, today's leadership in this House has plowed full speed ahead 
writing a partisan proposal that is aimed at appealing to ideological 
spectrums of their party. Last month, Teamsters general president James 
Hoffa wrote in a letter:

       How do eliminating OSHA protections for hazmat workers 
     improve this Nation's crumbling roads and bridges? How do 
     loopholes in ``Buy America'' protections put hundreds of 
     thousands of construction workers back on the job?

  Last month in a letter addressed to the Speaker of this body, the 
general president of the Laborers International Union, Terry 
O'Sullivan, wrote:

       The House must return to the principles of sound governance 
     and bipartisanship that has historically characterized 
     consideration of the Surface Transportation Act.

  He further noted:

       The offsets used to pay for this bill are also 
     irresponsible. Slashing the pay and retirement security of 
     the hardworking Federal and postal employees is neither 
     honest nor fair. It is an unacceptable attack on the 
     hardworking people who provide essential services for 
     veterans and Native Americans, process our mail, keep our 
     skies safe, our parks clean, and help protect us from 
     threats, both foreign and domestic.

  As has already been noted, one of our key business groups in this 
country, the Associated General Contractors, has stated the following:

       The majority of the work is supposed to go out in spring 
     and get done by the fall. Instead of spending 60 or 70 
     percent of their budgets, our small businesses are going to 
     cut back to 50 to 40 percent to make sure they have some cash 
     in the fall.

  That comes from one of the major business groups in this country 
responsible for putting people to work and responsible for getting our 
economy moving again. I urge that we take up the bipartisan Senate-
passed bill and reject this extension.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time to 
close.
  Madam Speaker and my colleagues, I think it might be time right now, 
Madam Speaker, that we call the Capitol Physician to come to the House 
floor. I think we should call the Capitol Physician because there 
appears to be on the other side a mass case of loss of memory, and I 
think that we need to clear up just a few facts in what has been said 
here.
  Now, we have the gentlelady from California who happened to be the 
Speaker of the House. As I recall, the other side controlled the House 
by a huge margin, the Senate by a significant margin--most of the time 
I think it was 60 votes where you could do anything--and they 
controlled the White House for those 2 years. They could have done 
anything they wanted to do. President Obama, in fact, sent Secretary 
LaHood to Mr. Oberstar and me--I was the ranking Republican, he was the 
chair--and cut the knees right out from the Democrats and said he 
wasn't doing a long-term bill, he was doing an 18-month bill, which 
really sent a death signal to transportation and infrastructure 
projects.
  In fact, the other side would be in the majority probably and I would 
be the ranking member if they had just done what they could have done. 
Then they tell you that we can't pass a bill. Well, let's deal with the 
facts. They six times had to do extensions. Not one extension was 
freestanding. In fact, one time they could not even pass the extension 
with the House, the Senate, and the White House. In March of 2010, they 
actually closed down programs.
  Madam Speaker, we may need the House Physician because there are 
multiple cases of amnesia, and we need to remind folks about the facts 
and what they have forgotten.
  Even in the extensions, I offered first a 90-day extension, and I 
know Speaker Boehner talked to the Senate and the other leaders and 
said we'll do a 90. No, we want to do a 60-day extension, they said. 
Then some of the Democrats felt like they were thrown under the bus, 
and the 60-day extension that they asked us to do, they couldn't get 
the votes for, they came down and spoke against yesterday.
  Madam Speaker, there's something wrong here. I think we really need 
to get the Capitol Physician involved because the amnesia is very, very 
serious on the other side. They had earmarks. The last bill was passed 
with 6,300 earmarks. They had earmarks. They had control. They couldn't 
even pass a freestanding bill and get it to the full committee. So, 
again, I think the amnesia is pretty rampant on the other side.
  I don't want this to be delayed any further because I want Americans 
to go back to work.
  We offer here today a long-term bill that will put people who want 
jobs in this country back to work without earmarks and without tax 
increases. The end of the era of the biggest gorilla walking off with 
the most bananas is over, and we will pass responsible legislation, and 
we will get it done.
  As the Cable Guy said, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to ``Git-R-
Done.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, today I voted against H.R. 4281, the 
Surface Transportation Extension Act. I oppose this legislation not 
because I oppose transportation funding--on the contrary--but because 
we can and should pass a better-funded and longer-term bill.
  The unemployment rate in the construction industry is nearly double 
the national average. Over the past year, I have met with many of my 
constituents who work in the construction industry, including 
construction workers, designers, managers, engineers, contractors, and 
developers. The one thing they have all shared is that another short-
term extension will not bring enough certainty to the industry to 
encourage the types of project development and job creation that our 
country needs.
  I object to H.R. 4281 because there is a better bill we can pass 
right now. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 14, or MAP-21, which is identical 
to the bill that passed the Senate with an overwhelming bipartisan 
majority, 74-22. MAP-21 would fund our transportation and 
infrastructure needs for two years. If the Republican leadership would 
allow that bill to come to the floor, we could pass it today. Instead, 
they have elected to play political games and pass a bill that promotes 
an unpredictable transportation future.
  I can't support a 90-day extension that will bring another funding 
battle at the end of June, during the heart of our construction season 
in Illinois. This attempt to ``kick the can down the road'' will delay 
projects and risk 4,500 jobs in our state alone. We need to move 
forward with legislation that will provide our state, local 
communities, and small businesses the stability and predictability they

[[Page 4504]]

need. A short-term extension will do nothing to alleviate concerns 
about future funding and will not reduce unemployment.
  Businesses and employees need the increased certainty that MAP-21 
will provide. We owe it to our constituents to oppose a short-term 
extension in favor of that bipartisan, commonsense legislation that 
will protect and promote our economic and transportation needs.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to 
oppose H.R. 4281, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012. I 
am opposing this measure because it is merely a 3-month extension, as 
opposed to a long-term reauthorization. States and municipalities need 
time to adequately plan their transportation projects, and these 
piecemeal extensions will not offer the certainty needed to see these 
projects through.
  It has been more than a month since House Republicans reported their 
seriously flawed bill, and they do not have the votes to pass it. I 
have served on the Transportation Committee for 20 years, and up until 
now, the committee has worked in a bipartisan fashion to produce a 
sound and commonsense transportation policy.
  Instead of voting on another extension, we should be considering the 
bipartisan Senate transportation bill. While I would prefer a longer 
reauthorization, the 2-year bipartisan Senate bill will provide the 
kind of investment in infrastructure and job creation that is 
desperately needed.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, the bill on the Floor today is not the 
bill we should be debating. Rather than extending surface 
transportation law for the ninth time, we should vote on the Senate-
passed, bipartisan MAP-21 bill, which has been introduced in the House 
as H.R. 14.
  This debate is yet another example of the Republican Majority's 
absolute refusal to compromise--even with Senators in their own party. 
They have spent six weeks arguing internally about this legislation. 
They have refused to work across the aisle. And this week they have 
waited until Thursday, two days before the surface transportation law 
expires, to hold a vote on this issue.
  This is not a time for games. We should be voting today on 
legislation to invest in critical infrastructure projects and support 
1.8 million jobs nationwide. We should send legislation to the 
President to ensure a strong construction season for an industry facing 
17.1 percent unemployment. Instead, the Republican Leadership insists 
on further delay.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
4281. This three-month transportation authorization extension does 
nothing to address the long-term needs of America's crumbling 
infrastructure.
  The National Governors Association is arguing against this 
unnecessary, shortsighted approach, saying: ``a string of short-term 
extensions will only increase uncertainty for state and local 
governments and the private sector.'' Likewise, the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce said earlier this week: ``Frankly, there is no length of 
extension adequate for the construction industry, its workers, and the 
business community in general.''
  Earlier this month, the Senate passed a two-year transportation 
authorization with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 74-22. This 
Senate bill will save or create over two million jobs, including 28,100 
jobs in Minnesota according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. 
If the Republican House leadership brought this legislation to the 
floor today it would pass with bipartisan support and reach the 
President's desk for signature prior to the expiration of the current 
authorization on Saturday.
  However, the Republican majority is rejecting this bipartisan 
opportunity, which is guaranteed to authorize federal transportation 
programs at current levels for two years. Republican leaders refuse to 
even bring the Senate bill to the floor for a vote. Instead, they 
continue wasting time in negotiations with extreme Tea Party Members in 
their own caucus in an effort to bring a hyper-partisan, job-destroying 
transportation bill to the floor. The Republican transportation bill, 
H.R. 7, would cut funding for 45 states, including over $313 million in 
cuts to Minnesota, and eliminate over 500,000 jobs nationwide. U.S. 
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, a former Republican Congressman 
from Illinois, told Politico that H.R. 7 ``is the most partisan 
transportation bill that I have ever seen.'' He added, ``It's the worst 
transportation bill I've ever seen during 35 years of public service.''
  I agree with Secretary LaHood. Minnesota's economy and workers would 
be significantly harmed by H.R. 7. The construction industry in my 
state suffered the most significant job losses of any sector during the 
recent recession. Construction jobs are again being added in Minnesota 
but, as of March, only one quarter of the 46,000 construction jobs lost 
in the recession have been recovered. This Republican transportation 
bill would reverse the positive momentum for Minnesota's economy and 
throw thousands of workers back on the bench.
  These devastating economic consequences are unacceptable and 
completely avoidable. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 7 and this 
short-term extension so the House can instead vote on the bipartisan 
Senate reauthorization to put Americans to work rebuilding our nation's 
infrastructure.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, it's been 910 days and eight 
extensions since SAFETEA-LU expired. Today we find ourselves kicking 
the can once again as we take up extension number nine because this 
House Majority has failed to act.
  Thankfully the Senate did act. Two weeks ago, Democratic and 
Republican Senators overwhelmingly voted, by a bipartisan majority of 
74-22, to generate jobs, repair our roads and bridges, invest in our 
infrastructure, and strengthen our economy. Meanwhile, this body under 
Republican leadership has yet to put forward a credible highway 
reauthorization that puts Americans back to work.
  MAP-21, the surface transportation authorization bill, passed by the 
Senate is by far the biggest jobs legislation Congress will consider 
this year.
  It is imperative that the House of Representatives join the Senate in 
passing this bipartisan bill and send it to the President before the 
March 31st expiration of highway program funding or risk devastating 
job losses across the nation.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 14 will save 1.8 million jobs and creates up to 1 
million more jobs.
  The bill also provides consistency for states and maintains current 
funding levels for highways and public transportation, consolidates and 
streamlines highway programs, and establishes a national freight 
program. This national freight program will provide over $2 billion 
dollars to upgrade our nation's goods movement system. That equates to 
$336 million to the state of California alone over two years for 
freight infrastructure upgrades. These funds are critical to areas like 
my district where over 40 percent of our country's imports arrive each 
year via the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
  In addition, the bill would authorize another $1 billion dollars in 
fiscal year 2013 for Projects of National and Regional Significance. In 
previous years, the Projects of National and Regional Significance 
provided funding to several projects that provide economic benefits by 
making it easier to move goods.
  Madam Speaker, these two programs and this bill are essential for our 
country to remain competitive globally.
  H.R. 14 also improves safety, and institutes performance measures and 
improves accountability for transportation infrastructure investments.
  Now is the time for swift action by the House action on the 
bipartisan Senate bill that will save or create 132,000 transportation 
jobs and 45,000 transit jobs in my home state of California.
  Transportation has long been a bipartisan issue--and the Senate 
continued this tradition. The House should follow suit and put America 
back to work by passing H.R. 14.
  I encourage my colleagues to stop kicking the can down the road--
start creating jobs--and defeat this extension.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 600, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 266, 
nays 158, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 147]

                               YEAS--266

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boswell

[[Page 4505]]


     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schrader
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--158

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Amash
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Flake
     Fleming
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Filner
     Jackson (IL)
     Mack
     Meeks
     Paul
     Rangel
     Towns


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1155

  Ms. WILSON of Florida changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay''.
  Messrs. CARSON of Indiana, SHULER, and ISRAEL changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall 147, I was away from the 
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________