[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5100-5131]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2012, PART II


                             General Leave

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on H.R. 4348.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 619 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4348.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1355


                     In the Committee of the Whole

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

                              {time}  1400

  But this bill can provide us reliable sources of energy. We're 
talking about a pipeline and a source from a good ally and neighbor in 
the North American continent. We're not talking about relying on 
Venezuela, the Middle East, or Nigeria, where we get a lot of our 
supplies for energy today. So it can provide again some stability, some 
reduction in price for the consumer, particularly when they're so hard 
hit at this time. We will have more to talk about with it.
  In regard to the Keystone pipeline, this pipeline has been studied to 
death. This administration, for over 3 years, has delayed approval. The 
President has approved a small part in one section of the country--or 
at least he says he would. You can't build a pipeline that can actually 
deliver energy at a lower cost in reliable fuel in a piecemeal fashion. 
The Keystone pipeline has been studied for about 3\1/2\ years now, 
while they built the entire Alaska pipeline in that period of time. So 
the time for studying, for delay, and for not acting on reducing energy 
costs and increasing supply has ended.
  Additionally, we have a couple of other provisions in here which I'm 
supportive of. One is the RESTORE Act, which creates the Gulf 
Restoration Trust Fund, and that provides for a fair and equitable 
manner for division of the penalties collected by those responsible for 
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. I think that that is a provision that 
can also help a lot of our Gulf States that were hard hit and impacted 
by that disaster.
  Finally, I think another amendment that I think is very laudatory is 
one by Mr. Ribble that has been made in order, and that carries, from 
H.R. 7, a lot of the streamlining provisions that we think are so 
important to getting projects done.

[[Page 5101]]

  President Obama promised us infrastructure when they sold a $787 
billion so-called stimulus package. Mr. Oberstar and I came back here. 
At the time, they were looking at a $250 to $300 billion stimulus bill, 
of which 50 percent would be, in fact, infrastructure. As it turned 
out, it was 6 or 7 percent. That's some $63 billion.
  Last October, there was still 35 percent of the $63 billion for 
infrastructure stuck in the Treasury in Washington, D.C., 2\1/2\ years 
after we passed the stimulus. So you can pass all the transportation 
bills you want, and if you can't deliver the project and cut the red 
tape and paperwork that Washington thrives on, then you can't get 
anything done. That provision is so important in moving transportation 
legislation forward that can make a difference in getting projects 
done.
  In the hearings that we did across the country, starting in Mr. 
Rahall's district--the Democrat leader of the committee--in Beckley, 
West Virginia, we heard at every single hearing all the way to the west 
coast when we did a bipartisan, unprecedented bicameral with Senator 
Boxer hearing on that coast, every single hearing, almost without 
question, most of the witnesses all said that we needed to speed up the 
projects.
  ``Shovel ready'' has become a national joke, and we've got to end 
that sad joke that doesn't allow us to go forward. I think the Ribble 
amendment will do that.
  With that, I think we have a vehicle that we can get to conference 
and work in a bipartisan and bicameral manner to get the job done.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

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

         House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
           Infrastructure,
                                   Washington, DC, April 17, 2012.
     Hon. Dave Camp,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     4348, the ``Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, 
     Part II.'' The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     recognizes the Committee on Ways and Means has a 
     jurisdictional interest in H.R. 4348, and I appreciate your 
     effort to facilitate consideration of this bill.
       I also concur with you that forgoing action on this bill 
     does not in any way prejudice the Committee on Ways and Means 
     with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this bill 
     or similar legislation in the future, and I would support 
     your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate number of 
     conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this 
     legislation.
       I will include our letters on H.R. 4348 in the 
     Congressional Record during floor consideration of the bill. 
     Again, I appreciate your cooperation regarding this 
     legislation and I look forward to working with the Committee 
     on Ways and Means as the bill moves through the legislative 
     process.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John L. Mica,
                                                         Chairman.

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

[[Page 5102]]

global market, we should be working together to develop a bipartisan 
bill that can pass both bodies and be signed into law.
  Taking the other side at their word, that they are serious about 
moving the process forward--I'm beginning to think that may be a likely 
scenario--passage of this extension of current law through the end of 
the fiscal year will allow us to go to conference with the other body 
on their bipartisan multiyear bill which passed with the support of 
three-quarters of the Senate. That is 74 votes in that other body.

                              {time}  1410

  How many pieces of legislation do you get that many votes on in the 
other body? A long-term bill will provide the certainty that States 
need to invest and proceed with their plans that have been long on the 
books. It will provide the certainty that highway and transit 
contractors desperately need to give them the confidence to hire that 
one more worker.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the chair of the Highway 
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4348 extends the surface transportation programs 
through September 30, 2012, at funding levels consistent with the 
fiscal year 2012 transportation appropriations bill, which we passed in 
November. Under the current extension, the highway, transit, and 
highway safety programs are set to expire on June 30. This legislation 
will allow these programs to continue through the fiscal year and to 
provide predictability during the summer construction season.
  This bill also includes provisions related to the approval of the 
Keystone pipeline. With the rising gas prices and uncertainty in the 
Middle East, it is vital that we complete construction of this crucial 
pipeline in order to help secure our Nation's energy resources. If we 
don't do this, Mr. Chairman, all we will be doing is helping foreign 
energy producers.
  I had originally hoped that the House would be able to move H.R. 7, 
the 5-year surface transportation reauthorization bill that was passed 
by our committee in February. Unfortunately, we were not able to bring 
H.R. 7 to the House floor at this time. Instead, we will use this bill 
as a vehicle to conference with the Senate-passed surface 
transportation reauthorization bill.
  There were three amendments that were made in order by the Rules 
Committee, and I would like to express my support for all three. Mr. 
Boustany's amendment would require that we spend the revenue we are 
collecting for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund on Army Corps of 
Engineers projects, as opposed to using this revenue to offset spending 
elsewhere in the Federal budget. This is a commonsense solution to help 
upgrade our Nation's ports and maintain our global economic 
competitiveness. Just this morning, we held a hearing on the importance 
to our entire economy of our inland waterway system, and Mr. Boustany's 
amendment will certainly help in that regard.
  Mr. Ribble's amendment is based on the environmental streamlining 
provisions that were included in H.R. 7. This amendment would eliminate 
duplication by providing a single system to review decisions. It 
reduces bureaucratic delay by requiring concurrent, instead of 
consecutive, project reviews and setting deadlines for the completion 
of environmental reviews. These changes could cut the delivery process 
in half and could save taxpayers many, many billions over the next 
several years.
  The last two studies by the Federal Highway Administration said the 
average highway project takes 13 years, one study said 15 years. That 
is far too long. Other developed nations are doing these projects in 
half the time or less than we are.
  Mr. McKinley's amendment includes the text of H.R. 2273, the Coal 
Residuals Reuse and Management Act. This amendment would prohibit the 
United States Environmental Protection Agency from driving coal-powered 
plants out of existence and doubling and tripling our utility bills.
  The U.S. has been called the Saudi Arabia of coal, Mr. Chairman. If 
we do not use our coal in a clean and safe way, we will hurt millions 
of poor, lower-income, and working people all across this Nation.
  I salute Chairman Mica for his hard work on this bill for the last 
several months, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4348 and the 
subsequent amendments.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member on 
our Transit and Highways Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from 
the State of Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Well, it appears that the House has finally found the path out of 
dysfunction junction. We have been there for too long. We need a long-
term, as long a term as possible, transportation bill as soon as 
possible.
  Now, this extension is for 180 days. We can't wait for 180 days to 
come to agreement with the Senate. We need to go to an expedited 
conference as soon as possible. We have been gathering data from the 
individual States since the last 90-day extension 3 weeks ago. The 
State of North Carolina has canceled $1.2 billion worth of projects, 
40,000 jobs, this year.
  Other States are reporting in, none quite so drastic, but the grand 
total is going to be probably close to 100,000 jobs foregone because of 
the uncertainty created by these 90-day extensions. It's time to put an 
end to 90-day extensions. This should be the last one, and we should 
proceed immediately to conference and begin to work through our 
differences with the Senate.
  Even H.R. 7, which the Republicans couldn't get out of their own 
conference, they could not get agreement between those 50 or 60 who 
believe their national transportation policy should be set individually 
by the 50 States. Wow, what does that mean? And/or transit should be 
thrown under the bus, or out of the bus, with the other members of the 
conference saying, wait a minute, that's totally unacceptable to us. 
They couldn't get the bill out.
  But even the fact that they couldn't get the bill out, there's much 
overlap and agreement between many provisions in H.R. 7 and what the 
Senate has done. I believe we could conference those areas in 
disagreement quite promptly.
  As the ranking member said, this no longer ends Safe Routes to 
Schools, something which I opposed in H.R. 7, and other cycling and 
alternate modes of transportation. It doesn't throw transit out the 
window or off the bridge, but transit would be in play between the 
House and the Senate.
  During the last stage or authorization of SAFETEA-LU, we had an 
incredible fight in conference. It wasn't between Democrats and 
Republicans; it was between the House and the Senate. We fought for a 
number of weeks over the split between transit and highways and came to 
a good accommodation, I believe. And hopefully we'll end up close to 
that in this.
  But the Senate bill, which we tried to force a vote on, and had we 
put that in place 3 weeks ago, instead of the 90-day extension, we 
wouldn't have lost or been in the process of losing all those contracts 
and jobs now at the beginning of the construction season. That's about 
100,000 jobs potentially lost with more temporary extensions. But we 
would, instead, have seen another 500,000 jobs, which is the predicted 
result of the stability of 2 years of funding with the Senate bill.
  So, you know, I will support this iteration because I am anxious to 
get to conference, I am anxious to get agreement. I believe we should 
get it done before the middle of May so that States can capture this 
construction season, and we can put a few hundred thousand people who 
desperately want jobs back to work and those who supply them back to 
work.
  Finally, on the issue of excessive fuel prices, there is only one 
thing we can do immediately. I mean, the XL pipeline, first off, they 
say they are going

[[Page 5103]]

to export it after they refine it. We are exporting gasoline from the 
United States of America today.
  We have prices being set in a world market, and it's being set by 
speculators on Wall Street. If we just clamp down on the speculation on 
Wall Street, the head of ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, the St. Louis 
Federal Reserve, and prominent economists say we could save consumers 
60 to 70 cents a gallon tomorrow if we stopped the rip-offs by the 
people on Wall Street, and the excessive speculation by the people on 
Wall Street, something that's only been allowed for about a decade.
  It didn't used to be allowed for them to control our energy future. 
So if you want to do something real, that should be part of this bill. 
XL pipeline can do nothing to help people get lower gas prices.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chair 
of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a highway and infrastructure bill. That means 
it is a jobs bill. Now, I would remind my colleagues and those watching 
that the President said back in January, as part of his weekly address, 
that he would do whatever it takes, whatever it takes, to create jobs. 
There is not a more shovel-ready project than the Keystone XL pipeline, 
period.
  Secretary Clinton said in October of 2010, I am inclined to support 
this project. In August of 2011, she indicated that there was no reason 
why they couldn't give an approval or a denial by the end of last year.

                              {time}  1420

  This is 20,000 direct jobs, more than 100,000 indirect jobs, a $7 
billion privately funded pipeline that will subscribe to the pipeline 
safety bill that this committee as well as the Energy and Commerce 
Committee worked on, that the President signed this last year, raising 
the standards, raising the fines for those that violate those 
standards. It is a better pipeline safety route than ever before. I 
have to say for those detractors, the route has been changed through 
Nebraska. It will no longer go through that aquifer.
  We will bring as much as 800,000 barrels of oil from the oil sands in 
Canada. As these gas prices continue to go up, Americans understand 
supply and demand; 800,000 barrels a day that we can get from our 
friends, the Canadians. If we don't do so, where is it going to go? 
China. China is already preparing to spend billions of dollars to 
instead build that pipeline to Vancouver, send it to China to be 
refined and, guess what, we will get none of that refined oil back.
  Some detractors of this project say why don't we just build a 
refinery in North Dakota. Well, let's say we did. Are you not going to 
still then build a pipeline to connect it with the supply routes across 
the country?
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MICA. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, we haven't built a new refinery since 1976. 
EPA will not allow new refineries to be built. We have spent instead 
billions of dollars to expand the refineries that we have.
  Under regular order we moved this Keystone pipeline last summer. It 
passed on the House floor two-to-one. There is no reason why a 
construction project like this shouldn't be in this bill. I look 
forward to the passage of this bill later this afternoon with the 
inclusion of the Keystone XL pipeline.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida, the ranking member on our Subcommittee on 
Railroads, Ms. Corrine Brown.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Thank you, Chairman Mica and Mr. Rahall.
  I will vote for this 3-month extension. But I have got to tell you, 
the Republican leadership has turned the House floor into 
Frankenstein's laboratory. Instead of bringing up a transportation bill 
that could get the support from both sides, they brought a bill to the 
floor that couldn't get support from either side. Now, after they 
couldn't convince the Tea Party Members that transportation is actually 
very important to our economy, they're taking parts from different 
bills and creating the monster that they call ``transportation.''
  It's a very sad time for transportation in the House of 
Representatives. The Republican leadership has ruined a process that 
used to be bipartisan, from a committee that used to be bipartisan. 
This is not the way to run the U.S. House of Representatives, and it is 
clearly not the way the American people want it to be run.
  I've been on the Transportation Committee for 20 years, and it has 
never been partisan. We were the committee that moved people, goods, 
and services, and put millions of people to work. Now we gut funding, 
abandon core programs like transit and hazmat safety, and argue about 
issues that aren't even germane to transportation.
  The Republican leadership has had a war on our Transportation 
Committee from the very beginning. First, they removed the firewalls 
from the trust fund and would no doubt be raiding it if we had any 
money in it. They cut the size of our committee in half. Then they gave 
us all freshmen Members, many who don't know how to say anything but 
no, no, no, no, no, no, no. And then for 2 straight years they've 
gutted transportation funding in the Ryan budget.
  You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool 
all of the people all of the time.
  President Barack Obama said recently that Republicans used to like to 
build roads. All of our stakeholders support a comprehensive 
transportation bill, and I am hoping that we can pass--I hate to say 
it--the Senate bill--we used to do the work--but I hope we can pass the 
Senate bill. I really want to say thank God for the United States 
Senate because finally we have some people that are pulling together a 
transportation bill that really will put the American people to work.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska, who's the leader and one of the 
authors of the Keystone provisions of this legislation, Mr. Terry.
  Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Certainly, the President of the United States knows how to say 
``no.'' He says ``no'' to the Keystone pipeline, turning down its 
application just 3 months ago. This gives the United States access to 
probably the largest known oil reserve sitting there in a pool in North 
America, but the President won't allow us to have access to it. Yet 
during this administration, gas prices at the pump have gone up 120 
percent.
  People in my district keep asking me, What's the energy policy? I 
have to tell them I don't know. He kills the pipeline giving us access 
to oil which would increase supply in the United States, yet sends 
billions of dollars to Solyndra and solar panel companies to further 
flood the market with more solar panels. So I don't know what the plan 
is to lower gas prices because he's not giving us access.
  Now, let's look at this $7 billion privately funded--that's right, 
maybe that's the problem: it's privately funded--infrastructure project 
to bring us more gasoline. It's denied. A $7 billion project to bring 
20,000 new jobs. The President says he'll do anything to create new 
jobs, but kills the pipeline that would get union workers off the 
benches and into the fields working.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MICA. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. TERRY. He kills those 20,000 direct jobs. There's millions of 
jobs, if we just used our own resources. Do you know that we can be 
completely energy secure using our own resources? But this 
administration lacks the will to be able to do that.
  Mr. RAHALL. May I inquire of the time remaining, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia has 18 minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from Florida has 15\1/4\ minutes remaining.

[[Page 5104]]


  Mr. RAHALL. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New 
York, a valued member of our Committee on Transformation and 
Infrastructure, Mr. Jerry Nadler.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4348, the 
second Surface Transportation Extension Act that we have considered 
this year.
  It has become eminently clear that the Republicans in the House 
cannot get consensus among themselves on a long-term transportation 
bill. They can't get consensus on a short-term transportation bill. 
They can barely pass this 90-day extension. The only way to get it 
through is to yet again add the Keystone pipeline and other anti-
environmental measures. The Republican leadership keeps playing the 
same cards over and over, but nobody is playing this game anymore. The 
Senate has moved on. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill. We should do 
the same.
  The purpose of this extension is to serve as a vehicle to formally go 
to conference with the Senate. I must confess that I might be inclined 
to vote for it on that basis. If it passes, the House position in 
conference will essentially be an extension of current law, putting the 
policy reforms in the Senate bill on a stronger footing; but I fear 
that this is really just a delaying tactic and a smokescreen.
  For a year and a half, the House Republicans have stubbornly refused 
to work with Democrats to develop a bipartisan bill, completely 
upending the historical traditions of our committee. This is despite 
the fact that there are plenty of individual Republican Members who are 
willing to work with us on certain issues.
  When H.R. 7, the original Republican long-term reauthorization bill, 
was introduced, several Republican Members joined me on an amendment to 
preserve the transit funding that would have been gutted in H.R. 7.

                              {time}  1430

  That was probably one of the reasons that H.R. 7 was ultimately 
pulled before it could get to the floor. So there are clearly Members 
on the other side of the aisle who would work with us to develop a 
bipartisan bill, but the Republican leadership stubbornly refuses to 
let that happen. Why should we expect anything different in conference?
  The Republican leadership could also just bring up the Senate bill, 
but they won't even allow a vote. Why? What are they afraid of? Because 
they know it would pass. And what would be wrong with that? The Senate 
bill isn't perfect, but it's a bipartisan compromise measure that would 
put people to work right away and provide more certainty to the 
transportation agencies than a stream of short-term extensions. We 
could resolve this situation right now, but they continue to block 
legislation that would likely pass both Chambers, on a bipartisan 
basis, and be signed into law by the President.
  I hope that my concerns about the intent of the other side turn out 
to be unwarranted. I hope that if this extension passes, that it will 
ultimately move the process along in a positive manner and that we will 
have a meaningful conference that produces a good, bipartisan bill. 
Passing an extension is certainly better than passing H.R. 7, but given 
what has transpired so far, and given the addition of the Keystone 
pipeline and other anti-environmental measures, I must reluctantly vote 
``no.''
  The Keystone pipeline would cut through the United States to allow 
Canada to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day of tar sand oil to gulf 
coast refineries. Tar sand oil extraction is destructive and dangerous. 
Producing one barrel of tar sand oil releases at least three times more 
global warming pollutants than conventional oil. If we allow this 
expansion to occur, it will be virtually impossible to reduce global 
warming. That's why the Keystone pipeline has rightfully been called a 
``game-changer.'' And there is no guarantee that any of the oil 
extracted would be delivered to U.S. consumers. We cannot allow such a 
gigantic and irreversible step backward in the fight against global 
warming. But these objections are not the administration's. The 
administration simply wants to be able to complete the normal 
environmental review of the Keystone pipeline provided by law to decide 
whether to approve it or not. But this legislation mandates approval 
regardless of the law. It supersedes the normal process. This makes it 
impossible to vote for this legislation.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished Representative, the former chair of the Government 
Reform and Oversight Committee, Mr. Burton from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  A question: Does the President prevaricate? Does he mislead? I've 
been watching him on television the last couple of days, and he says 
that we only have 2 percent of the oil reserves, and we've been doing 
more drilling over the past couple, 3 years than we've ever done 
before. So let's look at the facts, and I hope somebody at the White 
House may be paying attention.
  According to the American Petroleum Institute, the number of new 
permits to drill issued by the Bureau of Land Management is down 40 
percent from an average of 6,444 permits in 2007 2008 to an average of 
3,962 in 2009 2010. The administration is stopping drilling on public 
lands. During this same time period, the number of new wells drilled on 
Federal land has declined by 40 percent. And yet he keeps telling us 
the reason gas prices are going up is for a number of other reasons. 
The fact is, we're not drilling here. We've got more oil in oil shale 
in public lands than they have in Saudi Arabia, and we're not exploring 
for it.
  President Obama cites that oil production is at an all-time high 
during his administration. However, oil production on Federal land fell 
by 11 percent last year. Oil production on private and State-owned 
land--land beyond the Federal Government's grip--grew by 14 percent. So 
what he's talking about is where he can't touch it, on private land, 
the drilling is up a little bit. But that's only a small portion of the 
oil that's available.
  Federal lands hold an estimated--get this--116.4 billion barrels of 
recoverable oil, enough to produce gasoline for--get this--65 million 
cars and fuel oil for 3.2 million households for 60 years. And, yet, 
the administration keeps saying, oh, we can't do it; we're doing 
everything we can.
  The American people need to know the truth. The truth is, if we use 
our own natural resources, in 5, 10, 15 years we could be energy 
independent. But this administration wants to put more control in the 
Federal administration.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MICA. I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. This administration wants to put more and more 
control in the Federal Government, in health care, in energy, in every 
other area, because he believes in a European-style, socialistic 
approach to government. And the American people need to know that. He 
isn't giving us the facts.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished 
member of our committee, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Steve Cohen.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, last week in Memphis, I met with dozens of 
transportation, business, and civic officials involved in 
transportation. Every one of them said, stop the partisan politics and 
pass a transportation bill.
  Secretary Ray LaHood, a Republican who served 12 years in this House 
and 17 years as the chief of staff to Bob Michel, one of the great 
Members of this group, came to Memphis. He said, Pass the 
transportation bill. And he said the reason they don't want to do it is 
they don't want to give President Obama any jobs because they want to 
beat President Obama, and the American people don't matter. That's the 
fact. The Secretary said this is the worst transportation bill he's 
ever seen, and he said it shouldn't be politicized.
  Transportation leaders across the country and our Republican 
Transportation Secretary are begging us to take up the Senate bill, get 
it passed, put

[[Page 5105]]

Americans back to work, and improve our infrastructure.
  What's going on here is political. Gas prices are soaring, yes, but 
that's because of trouble in the Middle East, and that's because of oil 
speculators. It's not because of the Keystone XL pipeline. That is 
hooey. Domestic oil prices are set by the international market, and 
more and more emerging economies are wanting and needing oil. That 
causes the price to go up.
  This assertion, the assertion that gas will go down because of the 
pipeline, is false. In fact, if the pipeline is completed, gas prices 
will go up in this country, and TransCanada said that in their papers 
when they tried to get the pipeline approved.
  This will not mean more energy security. It will simply mean more 
money for international oil companies whose purpose is to raise money 
for themselves, and they're going to ship that oil overseas. It's not 
for American consumption.
  Yeah, they're not Middle Eastern, yeah, they're not Venezuelan, but 
they're making profit, and they're going to send that oil overseas. It 
won't help America at all. And then they threw in something about coal 
ash, coal ash rules that the EPA had that would have prevented a 
disaster like what happened in Tennessee. It has nothing to do with 
transportation. Put America back to work. Pass the Senate bill.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Let me just say I heard repeated here some things about what the 
Secretary said, and he did not have favorable comments about H.R. 7. So 
we've tried to bring something forward that would bring us to passing a 
bill and get people to work and get this resolved. And then today the 
Secretary said that the Congress would not pass a multiyear bill, 
instead of saying he'd work with us and be a leader to do that.
  Then the Secretary went on to say, look what they've loaded it up 
with--speaking about this bill today--Keystone, coal ash, none of it 
has anything to do with transportation.
  Well, first of all, I guess it's difficult for the Secretary to 
understand that energy costs and the pain at the pump are killing the 
consumer and impacting dramatically the American people. Keystone does 
have something to do with that. I guess if you have a chauffeur pick 
you up in the morning and you're not pumping the gas yourself and 
taking the money out of your pocket, you wouldn't understand the 
relevance of Keystone.
  And then coal ash, which was just referred to here by the gentleman, 
it makes our surface more durable and we save money----
  Mr. COHEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICA. I will not yield, and I don't like being interrupted, 
especially when I have a good point.
  Mr. COHEN. That's a rare time.
  Mr. MICA. Coal ash, to continue, although being interrupted, makes 
the surface more durable. It's important that we get value when we're 
putting money into roads and pavement. So it's a very important 
provision that saves costs and gets us more for our money.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. This bill is an environmental 
atrocity. The majority has allowed an unrelated amendment that would 
forbid the EPA--forbid them--from requiring the safe disposal of toxic 
coal waste that contains arsenic, mercury, and chromium. And the 
majority has allowed an amendment that would provide massive exemptions 
from the National Environmental Policy Act and smothers the ability of 
communities to have input into projects that could create toxic 
nightmares in local neighborhoods. This is what the Republicans are 
doing out here today. ``EPA,'' Every Polluter's Ally, that's what they 
want to turn it into.
  So what we have on top of that is a provision to build the Keystone 
pipeline through the United States of America from Canada, the dirtiest 
oil, by the way, in the world, bring it through the United States, and 
then to bring it to Port Arthur, Texas.

                              {time}  1440

  Now, what goes on in Port Arthur, Texas? Very interesting. I think 
it's important for the American people to know what happens there. Last 
year, 73 percent of all of the gasoline that was refined in Port Arthur 
and in the Houston area was exported out of the United States. 
Understand what I'm saying? This is oil that was found in the United 
States, drilled for in the United States, sent down to Texas, refined 
down there in the Houston and Port Arthur area, and then they exported 
it. And where did they export it to--our oil, United States oil? They 
exported it to China, to the Communists.
  The Republicans are here blocking an amendment that makes it possible 
for us to stop the oil from the Keystone pipeline from being sent to 
the Communist Chinese. Now, I hear gentlemen out here charging 
President Obama with being a Socialist, but who would engage in this 
kind of activity, to pretend that they want to have oil for the United 
States and for our citizens, and then when I ask for an amendment to 
ensure that all the oil that comes through the Keystone pipeline stays 
in the United States, the Republicans say, Oh, no, you're not making 
that amendment; we're going to tie your hands, Mr. Markey; you can't 
make the amendment; we don't want you to make us be prohibited from 
selling this oil to the Communist Chinese?
  Now, ladies and gentlemen, that's just wrong. That's wrong. That oil 
is American oil. That oil should stay in the United States. If we're 
building this pipeline, it should stay here in the United States. We 
should not be exporting American oil, with gasoline prices at $4 a 
gallon, to China and to Latin America.
  That's what this whole plot is about, by the way. This is a plot to 
build a pipeline down to Port Arthur, Texas, tax free, and export that 
oil out of the United States. That's why the amendment I requested has 
not been put in order.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Keystone XL pipeline as well as the underlying bill.
  The plot here is for jobs, American jobs. It's a no-brainer. Like 
most Arkansans, I support this pro-jobs project that will strengthen 
our national security by making us less dependent on Middle Eastern 
oil.
  Arkansas families and businesses are hurting due to high gas prices, 
and the Keystone pipeline will bring an additional 1 million barrels of 
oil per day into the United States. More supply means lower prices, and 
Arkansans, as well as all Americans, need relief from these high gas 
prices.
  President Obama denied construction of the Keystone XL pipeline 
despite years of extensive vetting for environmental impacts. Make no 
mistake, the President's decision to reject the Keystone pipeline has 
cost American jobs. Welspun, a manufacturer in my district, has 
manufactured nearly half of the pipe for the Keystone pipeline and was 
forced to lay off 60 workers after the President rejected the pipeline, 
after he delayed it last year.
  The Keystone pipeline will strengthen American energy security and 
create tens of thousands of good American jobs. It's past time to move 
the Keystone pipeline forward.
  Mr. RAHALL. Time check, please, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIR. Both sides have 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute at this time.
  I know there's a lot of disappointment on the other side of the aisle 
because this extension and this ability to get the bill done contains 
no earmarks, no tax increases, and no programs of bigger government, so 
I know they're disappointed in that regard.
  The other thing, too, that folks should remember is we've done 
everything we can in a bipartisan way to move this process forward. I 
remember

[[Page 5106]]

working with Mr. Oberstar, the former chairman, when the current 
Secretary and the President came in and said they weren't going to do a 
6-year bill when they had all the votes, huge majorities, and they 
could have put people to work and gotten this done. Instead, they gave 
us six extensions. So here we are trying to get the job done.
  As the Cable Guy says, and my son reminds me, Dad, we're gonna git-r-
done. And we're going to get her done one way or the other.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time, 
actually.
  We're going to have time during the amendment process to debate the 
three amendments that have been made in order under the rule. I wish 
more had been made in order--that's why I voted against the rule--but 
that decision was the Rules Committee.
  The three that will be allowed, of course one has to do with 
environmental gutting--I mean, streamlining; the other has to do with 
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; and then the third has to do with 
legislation introduced by my colleague from West Virginia (Mr. 
McKinley) dealing with coal waste ash, the latter of which there is 
support from my side of the aisle for and, indeed, from myself.
  The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is a good amendment. I'm glad the 
Rules Committee made that in order, and I find myself in position to 
support that as well as the coal ash amendment. At the proper time, 
I'll speak further on it.
  I would like to say that the gentleman from Florida, my chairman, has 
referred to the inability of our side of the aisle to pass legislation 
when we were in control of this body. We may have been in control of 
the other body as well--although, we were not, because the minority 
over there, as the gentleman knows, has more power than the majority in 
the other body; and perhaps we did not have the full support of the 
administration as we would have liked under then-Chairman Jim 
Oberstar's leadership, and that's unfortunate as well. I don't think 
any of us would deny that on this side of the aisle.
  The fact of the matter is, today, with the other body being even more 
divided than it was in previous leadership regimes, they have passed a 
bipartisan bill. Half of the Republican Members of the other body 
supported their bipartisan transportation bill. Both the chairlady and 
the ranking member of the relevant committee joined together, put their 
names on a piece of legislation, put some reforms in it that are good 
reforms, provided a 2-year bill, paid for, and I believe is a bill that 
we should have been considering today and that I had made the request 
to the Rules Committee yesterday to consider, but they did not grant my 
wishes, so we are where we are today.
  We have an additional 90-day extension that we will be asked to vote 
on later today. That's a good thing, I guess, if we get to a 
conference. And this is the final point that I want to make is that 
conference must be held sooner rather than later. It must be held as 
soon as possible. We're ready to go to conference later today if the 
conferees were to be announced. We already have the Senate bill. So 
from our side of the aisle, we're ready to go to conference today, 
right now.
  I would urge the majority in this body to call that conference as 
soon as possible. Our workers cannot wait any longer. Our small 
businesses cannot wait any longer. Our road contractors cannot wait any 
longer.
  This is the time of the year when road contracts are let, as I'm sure 
my distinguished chairman and every Member of this body knows full 
well. This is the time of the year, the springtime of the year when 
those decisions have to be made, when our small businesses, when our 
road contractors need to let their employees and prospective employees 
know--today they need to let them know whether or not they're going to 
have a job, not 90 days from now, not 90 plus 90 days from now, but 
today.
  So that's why I would urge that this conference committee meet as 
quickly as possible. I call upon the leadership of this body to call a 
conference committee. Our workers are ready. Our contractors are ready. 
Contracts are ready to be let.

                              {time}  1450

  We need those American jobs now, and I would hope that Chairman Mica 
would join me in a bipartisan plea to assign conferees as expeditiously 
as possible and to call a conference even quicker, if that's possible.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake), one of the leaders for responsible government.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I rise in support of the provision in this legislation to get the 
construction of the Keystone pipeline under way.
  For months, Members on both sides of the aisle have worked to impress 
upon the administration the urgent need for the Keystone XL pipeline 
project to proceed. Justification for Keystone as a safe and critical 
boon to private sector job creation and American energy security has 
not changed.
  This project, as we all know, carries with it thousands of jobs. It 
will still increase the Nation's capacity to transport crude oil by 
830,000 barrels a day; and the State Department is still on record 
saying that the Keystone ``poses little environmental risk'' and will 
lead to ``no significant impacts to most resources.''
  But, unfortunately, the administration's reluctance to proceed with 
Keystone has left some that question things on Keystone and some debate 
to begin. The unemployment rate is still above 8 percent. The U.S. 
still relies on the same sources of foreign energy, and a lot of 
Americans are asking why, why in the world can't we get this approved.
  I would urge adoption of this provision.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MICA. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
  I have concerns, overall, on the transportation provisions, but this 
provision is very good, the Keystone provision, and it should remain 
in.
  I rise in support of this provision to get construction of Keystone 
XL pipeline underway.
  For months, Members from both sides of the aisle have worked 
tirelessly to impress upon the Administration the urgent need for the 
Keystone XL pipeline project to proceed.
  The justification for Keystone as a safe and critical boon to private 
sector job creation and American energy security has not changed. This 
project will still create thousands of jobs. It will still increase the 
nation's capacity to transport crude oil by 830,000 barrels per day; 
and the State Department is still on record stating that Keystone 
``poses little environmental risk'' and will lead to ``no significant 
impacts to most resources.''
  Unfortunately, the Administration's reluctance to proceed with the 
Keystone XL pipeline has left some other figures unchanged since debate 
on Keystone began. The unemployment is still above 8 percent. The U.S. 
still relies on the same sources of foreign energy; and American's are 
still asking why?
  Yet thousands remain out of work because the President refuses to 
pick up his pen. Americans want more jobs and greater energy security. 
Construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline will help to ensure both. I 
urge support for this provision.
  Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), one of the leaders of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee and helper on this legislation.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida 
for yielding and for bringing this legislation forward and, 
specifically, want to talk about title III of this bill, and that deals 
with the RESTORE Act.
  Of course, this Friday will mark the 2-year anniversary of the 
Deepwater Horizon disaster. People all across the country saw for weeks 
and weeks oil coming into the Gulf of Mexico, destroying ecosystems, 
destroying economic industries. And yet, still to this day, there is no 
mechanism in place to dictate what should happen to those fines that BP 
and the other responsible

[[Page 5107]]

parties will have to pay under the Clean Water Act.
  In this component, the RESTORE Act actually sets that policy out. And 
it was the result of a compilation of work by Republicans and Democrats 
from all five Gulf Coast States who came together and recognized that 
the most responsible thing to do would be to dedicate that money, 80 
percent of those fines, to the Gulf Coast States so that we actually 
have revenue to go and restore the damage that's been done.
  I think most people recognize the right thing to do is to dedicate 
that money, not to send it up to Washington to be spent on things 
unrelated, but to actually allow us to restore the damage that was done 
in the Gulf of Mexico from that tragedy, and that's what this bill 
does.
  The mechanism is in place, and as we go to a conference committee, I 
feel very confident we can get to a point where we have the full 
RESTORE Act in the final product so that there is no question that 
there is a commitment from this Congress that the Gulf Coast States 
ought to have the ability to restore the damage that was done during 
that tragedy.
  Of course, another component of this bill is the Keystone pipeline. 
And I think as we look at the dilemma so many families are facing with 
escalating gas prices, the fact that you've got gas prices in some 
places already over $4 a gallon, experts predicting $5 a gallon 
gasoline, and here we have a friend in Canada saying that they want to 
send a million barrels a day of oil to America, which is a million 
barrels a day we don't have to get from these Middle Eastern countries 
who don't like us, sending billions of dollars to people, in essence, 
funding the enemy in some of these terrorist battles across the Middle 
East.
  We've got the ability to create 20,000 jobs and secure our energy 
security. I look forward to passage of this legislation.
  Mr. RAHALL. Is the gentleman from Florida ready to close?
  Mr. MICA. I'm ready to close.
  Mr. RAHALL. I know how much time I have left, I think, but just tell 
me, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. RAHALL. Let me, again, repeat what I said a moment ago. I'm sure 
the chairman heard me. And I'm asking, once again, that we go to 
conference as quickly as possible. I gave the reasons in my concluding 
speech why that is necessary for the sake of jobs for Americans.
  I would hope that, in one last-ditch effort, one last-ditch effort to 
plead for bipartisanship in this body, as the other body has already 
demonstrated and proved, that perhaps the chairman would join me, his 
ranking member, in a letter to the Speaker urging that we go to 
conference as quickly as possible.
  The legislative process has been explained to me, and when you cut 
through it all, we could go to conference as early as tonight on this 
legislation. So I would ask the chairman, once again, if he would join 
me in that last bipartisan plea I make for such a joint pleading with 
the Speaker to go to conference.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would yield to 
the chairman of the committee in the hope that he would respond to that 
because I think it's a reasonable request.
  Mr. MICA. And I would tell the gentleman--am I on the gentleman's 
time, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIR. Yes, you're on the gentleman's time.
  Mr. MICA. Okay. Then I would tell the gentleman that I plan to 
respond in not taking his time, but in taking my time to the request 
from the distinguished ranking member from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), 
and I will have an answer in response to his specific question dealing 
with whether or not I would sign the letter asking for an expeditious 
approval and consideration of appointment of conferees and going to 
conference in an expedited manner.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, I'm afraid I didn't quite catch 
that. If the gentleman is saying that he wants to originate the letters 
making those points, I will tell him right now I would sign it, and I 
believe the gentleman from West Virginia would sign it. If that's the 
problem that he was insinuating that we in the minority would initiate 
the letter, the point is we would love to have the chairman write the 
letter and be willing to sign it.
  My understanding of the procedures that have been set forth already 
in the Senate is when we send this bill to the Senate, and it could be 
there within a couple of hours, that Leaders McConnell and Reid must 
sit down and agree that it meets their preconditions to go to 
conference. If it does, then the Senate goes automatically to 
conference. They don't have to go through all their usual procedures, 
and then they would send a request for conference back to us, which 
could be here tonight or early tomorrow morning, and we could appoint 
conferees tomorrow, and we could begin negotiating the bill.
  I'm willing to clear my weekend schedule. I have things scheduled. 
I'm willing to clear my weekend schedule. I hope to be a conferee on 
our side of the aisle to go to conference because we really need to get 
the certainty the States need.
  Every day States are announcing delays and cancellations of projects 
for this construction season which, for those of us who live in the 
northern part of the country, not down in Florida, means they don't get 
done this year. If they can't commit to a project by the end of May, 
except for some very minor projects, it won't get done this year.
  We need those jobs. We need those projects. Instead of adding jobs 
and projects today, because of the temporary nature of these two 
extensions, States are notifying DOT that they are going to delay or 
cancel projects. And again, in the case of North Carolina, $1.2 billion 
worth of projects, 41,000 jobs lost. In my State, a couple of thousand 
jobs lost, and we have high unemployment. All across the country, it 
probably adds up to 100,000 jobs that will be foregone this 
construction season if we don't get a longer-term bill done by mid- to 
late May.
  I think it's entirely possible and, as I said, on this side of the 
aisle we want to expedite going to conference. That's the reason we 
will support this bill, despite some of its faults, because the 
majority has shown a willingness to sit down seriously and get this 
done, but we can't delay. We have to move forward with all dispatch.
  Let's start tomorrow. Let's work through the weekend. Let's work 
through the next break. We've already had 10 or 12 or 15 breaks this 
year. Let's work through the next break. I'll cancel my schedule for 
that break, too, and get this bill done for the American people for our 
transportation system by mid-May.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. RAHALL. As we are all anxiously awaiting the chairman to respond 
with his time, I yield back the balance of my time so that we all can 
wait with bated breath to hear the distinguished chairman's response to 
our invitation.
  Mr. MICA. Might I inquire as to what time is remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 5\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. MICA. In answering with bated breath, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  First of all, let me say on a serious basis that I've tried to have 
the best working relationship possible with Mr. Rahall, the Democrat 
leader of the Transportation Committee. He and I were respectively 
chosen to lead the committee, and I've tried to do my best in the last 
year plus several months to work with him in meeting our 
responsibilities.
  We have done some important things. We passed a 5-year stalled FAA 
bill, and we did it without tax increases, without earmarks, and with a 
good plan for the future that will put people to work in an area, the 
aviation industry, that accounts for 10 percent of our economic 
activity in the country.
  Let me say in regard to the former chair of, I believe, the Highway 
Subcommittee, Mr. DeFazio, that he was

[[Page 5108]]

the ranking member on 9/11 when the good Lord put us both with the 
responsibility of trying to get the Nation's aviation system going 
after the horrendous attack by terrorists on our country and on the 
aviation system, and we did that together.
  I came to this position after 18 years, after my predecessor, Mr. 
Oberstar, who I enjoyed so much working with, who was the distinguished 
leader from the other side. I learned quite a bit from Mr. Oberstar and 
others, from Mr. Shuster who came before me. There was a whole host of 
great leaders in the committee--Mr. Mineta, my first chair. I tried to 
learn from all of them and not make mistakes but to do the best thing 
for the committee, not for my self-interests or my party's interests, 
but in the interest of the American people, because that's what we're 
sent here for is to help the American people.
  We had a crisis after 9/11. We came together. We have a crisis now. 
We have millions of Americans who don't have jobs, who don't have work. 
I supported the bill. I think Mr. Oberstar waited 32 years to become 
chairman. I was elected after 18 years by my colleagues. He had his 
bill pretty much together. I didn't have a bill.
  I first went to Mr. Rahall's district, who is the ranking member, and 
held the first hearing on this legislation in Beckley, West Virginia, 
which I'd never been to, and I wouldn't mind going back. Everybody 
there was nice to me and committed then. We went across the country and 
did a record number of hearings--as I said, bipartisan, bicameral with 
Mrs. Boxer, who I hope to complete this legislation with and with other 
leaders and workers, because here you can't do it yourself. You really 
can't. You might think you can, but you can't.
  So I have taken everybody's good ideas, and please don't say I wasn't 
bipartisan. We took every amendment, 100 Democrat amendments. I don't 
know anyone who has done that. We sat there until 3 o'clock in the 
morning--it was an 18-hour markup--and we passed 20-some of their 
amendments. Shoot, this is difficult. I don't have earmarks like the 
previous chairman had. The last bill had 6,300 earmarks. Yes, you can 
get the bill done quickly, but even then it took them 2 years. I've 
been here for--what?--14 months leading the committee, and today, we 
will take this to conference.
  To answer your question, not only will I sign the letter; I will 
draft the letter asking to be expeditious in going to conference and in 
the appointment of conferees. In addition, I'll ask our chair, Mr. 
Duncan, to sign that letter--I hope you will join me, and I thank you 
for offering that--so we can get the people's work done.
  I look back and I see the missed opportunities, one when Mr. LaHood 
came in to Mr. Oberstar and me and turned down a 6-year bill that we 
had planned. I didn't like everything Mr. Oberstar proposed. In fact, I 
probably would have had to have held my nose and voted for it; but I 
told him, in the interest of the country and the American people, we 
needed to move forward, and I was supportive of getting the bill to 
conference so we could work out the details. I wasn't afforded all that 
opportunity in this process, and I'm saddened a bit about that because 
I have tried to work in good faith.
  Now the American people are calling on us to stop the bickering, to 
stop the baloney, to get back to work. The American people are hurting.
  Then again, there is the pain at the pump. I've seen people, when 
I've been home, taking out a few dollars at a time in trying to pay 
that gas bill, and sometimes I've seen people go out and buy $5 worth 
of gas. It breaks my heart that they can barely make it back and forth. 
I saw a waitress who was telling me how difficult it was for her to get 
to work because she couldn't afford it. But that's why they sent us 
here--to get this job done, and we need to get this job done.
  So I think, on behalf of the American people, we need to continue the 
process. We've been down several roads, and some of those had some 
bumps and some of them had some dead ends, but let's hope that this has 
a path to lower energy costs and that this has a path to building this 
country's infrastructure, which is so important for what the business 
of this country is. The business of this country is business. It wasn't 
Big Government. So we can do it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise to support H.R. 
4348, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, Part II, but I 
do so with a great deal of reservation. The simple fact is that we must 
pass a transportation reauthorization for the benefit of the country, 
as the piecemeal extensions cannot provide cities and states adequate 
time to plan, and result in wasteful spending of our precious 
infrastructure dollars.
  The current bill was crafted in backrooms of the GOP leadership, 
without the benefit of hearings or a markup. This bill does not include 
one Democratic amendment, and contains numerous poison pills such as 
the Keystone XL pipeline that will be non-starters with Senate 
conferees. Up until the present time, the House Transportation and 
Infrastructure committee has worked in a fashion that focused on shared 
goals and producing the type of legislation that creates jobs, improves 
safety, and keeps Americans safe on the roads they travel. As a senior 
member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I can 
say that this reauthorization process in the House has been a stark 
departure from the traditional bipartisan process, and the quality of 
the bill has suffered as such.
  Nevertheless, I support final passage of H.R. 4348 because it will 
enable the House to conference with the Senate on the reauthorization, 
and with a reauthorization in place, we can begin to repair our 
crumbling infrastructure and get thousands of American back to work.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my opposition to the 
bill passed by this chamber last night, H.R. 4348, the Surface 
Transportation Extension Act of 2012, Part II.
  Each day that Congress fails to act on a long-term reauthorization of 
our nation's surface transportation programs is another day that our 
roads and bridges deteriorate. It's another day that our states and 
counties will be unable to plan and budget for projects to improve our 
communities and facilitate commerce. And it's another day that workers 
in the hard hit construction industry will have to wait for a chance to 
get back on the job.
  It would have been a tremendous victory for the American people if 
the House had come together as the Senate did last month. They passed a 
2-year transportation bill on a strong, bipartisan vote of 74-22. It 
isn't a perfect bill, but it is a step forward for strengthening our 
economy and getting people back to work.
  However, the Majority in the House has blocked every attempt to have 
a clean, up or down vote on the Senate's bipartisan bill. Instead, they 
have chosen to pursue controversial, ideologically driven proposals. In 
fact, the bill this chamber passed yesterday has already drawn a veto 
threat from the White House for its inclusion of provisions to 
unnecessarily expedite the Keystone pipeline project. It would also 
undermine environmental protection procedures that allow our 
constituents the opportunity to weigh in on projects that impact their 
communities and quality of life.
  These are not small policy changes. The Keystone XL pipeline is a 
huge project that could have significant consequences for years to 
come. It deserves rigorous and objective analysis to determine whether 
it is in fact in the best interest of our nation's future to approve 
and construct such a project.
  Changing our environmental protection procedures for infrastructure 
projects requires the same sort of thoughtful debate and careful 
analysis. Infrastructure projects are long-term--they fundamentally 
change communities. We need to make sure that the impacts of these 
projects, and the views of local residents and businesses, are taken 
into account before taxpayer funds are committed.
  I do support the provisions of H.R. 4348 that will allow for full 
utilization of funds in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and provide 
for additional resources to continue restoring the Gulf Coast. I 
believe that these are important issues for the House and Senate to 
consider during their Conference.
  However, I am still disappointed that the House has failed to come 
together on legislation that has historically been truly bipartisan. I 
hope that Conferees will get to work expeditiously and come up with a 
product that can receive bipartisan support in both the Senate and the 
House.
  We owe it to our states, communities, and the families that depend on 
paychecks in the construction industry to move this forward quickly.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chair, the transportation infrastructure needs of 
our nation are urgent

[[Page 5109]]

and unprecedentedly large. Addressing those needs must be at the center 
of our economic recovery. This transportation bill does not address 
those needs. Instead, it forces approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline, 
which will undermine the recovery by driving up gas prices across the 
U.S., with the largest increases in Midwestern states like Ohio.
  This is not just my conclusion. That is what TransCanada, the company 
that wants to build the Keystone XL Pipeline, told the Canadian 
government in its permit application. Canadian oil companies will be 
able to use the Keystone XL pipeline to increase America's fuel bill by 
up to 4 billion dollars per year, by reducing the supply of Canadian 
crude to Midwest refineries and by re-routing that crude around its 
current delivery point in Cushing, Oklahoma and on to Gulf Coast 
refineries.
  Through manipulation of U.S. oil markets, the Keystone XL Pipeline 
will increase U.S. gas prices by 10 to 20 cents per gallon across the 
U.S., according to energy economist Philip Verleger. The greatest price 
increase will occur in 15 Midwest states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 
Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North 
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin). Adding 
insult to financial injury, oil from the pipeline will be sold overseas 
instead of being used to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
  The bill's $4 billion gift to the oil industry, which already gets 
tens of billions of dollars every year in subsidies, comes only one day 
after the President announced efforts to try to rein in gas prices and 
the excesses of the oil industry.
  We should be considering either an unencumbered motion to go to 
conference or the Senate's transportation package, which passed with an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 74-22.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered as read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4348

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

     SECTION 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Table of contents.

               TITLE I--SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION

Sec. 101. Short title.

                    Subtitle A--Federal-Aid Highways

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

            Subtitle B--Extension of Highway Safety Programs

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

               Subtitle C--Public Transportation Programs

Sec. 131. Allocation of funds for planning programs.
Sec. 132. Special rule for urbanized area formula grants.
Sec. 133. Allocating amounts for capital investment grants.
Sec. 134. Apportionment of formula grants for other than urbanized 
              areas.
Sec. 135. Apportionment based on fixed guideway factors.
Sec. 136. Authorizations for public transportation.
Sec. 137. Amendments to SAFETEA-LU.

                Subtitle D--Highway Trust Fund Extension

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

                     TITLE II--KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

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

                         TITLE III--RESTORE ACT

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

               TITLE I--SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

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

                    Subtitle A--Federal-Aid Highways

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

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

            Subtitle B--Extension of Highway Safety Programs

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

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

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

       (a) Motor Carrier Safety Grants.--Section 31104(a)(8) of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(8) $212,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.''.
       (b) Administrative Expenses.--
       (1) In general.--Section 31104(i)(1)(H) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:

[[Page 5110]]

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

     SEC. 123. ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS.

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

               Subtitle C--Public Transportation Programs

     SEC. 131. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR PLANNING PROGRAMS.

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

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

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

     SEC. 133. ALLOCATING AMOUNTS FOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS.

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 135. APPORTIONMENT BASED ON FIXED GUIDEWAY FACTORS.

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

     SEC. 136. AUTHORIZATIONS FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) Formula and Bus Grants.--Section 5338(b) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking subparagraph (G) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(G) $8,360,565,000 for fiscal year 2012.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``$113,500,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $85,125,000 for the 
     period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 
     2012,'' and inserting ``and $113,500,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2009 through 2012'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``$4,160,365,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $3,120,273,750 
     for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on 
     June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``and $4,160,365,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2009 through 2012'';
       (C) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``$51,500,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $38,625,000 for the 
     period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 
     2012,'' and inserting ``and $51,500,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2009 through 2012'';
       (D) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``$1,666,500,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $1,249,875,000 
     for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on 
     June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``and $1,666,500,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2009 through 2012'';
       (E) in subparagraph (E) by striking ``$984,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $738,000,000 for the 
     period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 
     2012,'' and inserting ``and $984,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2009 through 2012'';
       (F) in subparagraph (F) by striking ``$133,500,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $100,125,000 for the 
     period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 
     2012,'' and inserting ``and $133,500,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2009 through 2012'';
       (G) in subparagraph (G) by striking ``$465,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $348,750,000 for the 
     period

[[Page 5111]]

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

     SEC. 137. AMENDMENTS TO SAFETEA LU.

       (a) Contracted Paratransit Pilot.--Section 3009(i)(1) of 
     SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1572) is amended by striking ``2011 and 
     the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 
     30, 2012,'' and inserting ``2012,''.
       (b) Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program.--Section 3011 
     of SAFETEA-LU (49 U.S.C. 5309 note; 119 Stat. 1588) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(5) by striking ``2011 and the period 
     beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012'' 
     and inserting ``2012''; and
       (2) in the second sentence of subsection (d) by striking 
     ``2011 and the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and 
     ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``2012''.
       (c) Elderly Individuals and Individuals With Disabilities 
     Pilot Program.--Section 3012(b)(8) of SAFETEA-LU (49 U.S.C. 
     5310 note; 119 Stat. 1593) is amended by striking ``June 30, 
     2012'' and inserting ``September 30, 2012''.
       (d) Obligation Ceiling.--Section 3040(8) of SAFETEA-LU (119 
     Stat. 1639) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(8) $10,458,278,000 for fiscal year 2012, of which not 
     more than $8,360,565,000 shall be from the Mass Transit 
     Account.''.
       (e) Project Authorizations for New Fixed Guideway Capital 
     Projects.--Section 3043 of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1640) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by striking ``2011 and the period beginning on October 
     1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting 
     ``2012''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by striking ``2011 and the period beginning on October 
     1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting 
     ``2012''.
       (f) Allocations for National Research and Technology 
     Programs.--Section 3046 of SAFETEA-LU (49 U.S.C. 5338 note; 
     119 Stat. 1706) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b) by striking ``fiscal year or period'' 
     and inserting ``fiscal year''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (c)(2) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) for fiscal year 2012, in amounts equal to 63 percent 
     of the amounts allocated for fiscal year 2009 under each of 
     paragraphs (2), (3), (5), and (8) through (25) of subsection 
     (a).''.

                Subtitle D--Highway Trust Fund Extension

     SEC. 141. EXTENSION OF HIGHWAY-RELATED TAXES.

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

     SEC. 142. EXTENSION OF TRUST FUND EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.

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

[[Page 5112]]

     9508(e) of such Code is amended by striking ``July 1, 2012'' 
     and inserting ``October 1, 2012''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on July 1, 2012.

                     TITLE II--KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 202. RESTRICTION.

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

     SEC. 203. PERMIT.

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

     SEC. 204. RELATION TO OTHER LAW.

       (a) General Rule.--Notwithstanding Executive Order 13337 (3 
     U.S.C. 301 note), Executive Order 11423 (3 U.S.C. 301 note), 
     section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and any other 
     Executive Order or provision of law, no presidential permits 
     shall be required for the construction, operation, and 
     maintenance of the pipeline and related facilities described 
     in section 202(b) of this Act.
       (b) Applicability.--Nothing in this title shall affect the 
     application to the pipeline and related facilities described 
     in section 202(b) of--
       (1) chapter 601 of title 49, United States Code; or
       (2) the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission to regulate oil pipeline rates and services.
       (c) Final Environmental Impact Statement.--The final 
     environmental impact statement issued by the Secretary of 
     State on August 26, 2011, shall be considered to satisfy all 
     requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

                         TITLE III--RESTORE ACT

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 302. GULF COAST RESTORATION TRUST FUND.

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

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


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Boustany

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

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

                 TITLE IV--HARBOR MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS

     SEC. 401. FUNDING FOR HARBOR MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Guarantee.--
       (1) In general.--The total budget resources for a fiscal 
     year shall be equal to the level of receipts for harbor 
     maintenance for that fiscal year. Such amounts shall be used 
     only for harbor maintenance programs.
       (2) Guarantee.--No funds may be appropriated for harbor 
     maintenance programs unless the amount under paragraph (1) 
     has been provided for all such programs.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:

[[Page 5113]]

       (1) Harbor maintenance programs.--The term ``harbor 
     maintenance programs'' means expenditures under section 
     9505(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     expenditures from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund).
       (2) Level of receipts for harbor maintenance.--The term 
     ``level of receipts for harbor maintenance'' means the level 
     of taxes credited to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund under 
     section 9505(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for a 
     fiscal year as set forth in the President's budget baseline 
     projection as defined in section 257 of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177) 
     for that fiscal year submitted pursuant to section 1105 of 
     title 31, United States Code, reduced by the amount requested 
     in such President's budget for payments described in section 
     9505(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (3) Total budget resources.--The term ``total budget 
     resources'' means the total amount made available by 
     appropriations Acts from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 
     for a fiscal year for making expenditures under section 
     9505(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

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

                              {time}  1510

  This amendment is critical for American competitiveness. It gives the 
House a strength of hand going into conference with the Senate as I 
look forward to continuing to find alternative ways to enforce that 
these funds are dedicated swiftly and solely for the intended purpose, 
and that is for port and waterways maintenance.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, although not in opposition, I ask unanimous 
consent to claim the time.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from West Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
  I've long supported changing the law so that the funds collected for 
harbor maintenance are spent on harbor maintenance. They're spent all 
across the country on a whole range of things, except harbor 
maintenance. I have jetties failing in Coos Bay, Oregon; a jetty 
failing at the mouth of the Columbia River. I have ports that are 
shoaling in Port Orford or Florence that the Corps says they can't 
afford dredging. I don't blame the Corps because they've been shorted 
in the budget process. They have a $40 billion backlog of critical 
projects.
  This will help them focus their energies on some other critical 
projects by giving them adequate funds to do the dredging, to rebuild 
the jetties, and to do the other work to maintain our locks and 
channels that they need to do.
  This is long overdue, and I strongly support the amendment.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Gibbs), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources 
and Environment.
  Mr. GIBBS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time to discuss this 
important amendment.
  Congress has been neglecting our Nation's dredging needs for far too 
long. Ninety-five percent of the Nation's commerce goes through our 
Nation's ports. Despite the fact that the harbor maintenance fund, as 
was said, raises about $1.3 billion a year, Congress has only been 
appropriating about $800 million of that annually. This isn't right. 
I'm a firm believer that trust funds should be used for the intended 
purpose--to dredge the harbors.
  In response, Congressman Boustany introduced H.R. 104, the Realize 
America's Maritime Promise, RAMP Act. This legislation, of which I was 
proud to be the 100th cosponsor, simply ties the Harbor Maintenance 
Trust Fund revenue to expenditures.
  While this amendment is slightly modified from H.R. 104, it would 
require the total budget resources for expenditures for the trust fund 
for harbor maintenance programs to equal the level of receipts plus 
interest credited to the trust fund for that fiscal year.
  At a time where the President proposes to double our exports and we 
look to grow our Nation's economy, we cannot sit back and continue to 
watch our Nation's waterborne infrastructure system deteriorate.
  I urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my friend Mr. 
Boustany's amendment. I think it's a good step forward. Spending all 
the money that's in the cash that we take in is in the best interest of 
maintaining our harbors. But I think we need to take another step. I 
hope I can get Mr. Boustany and others to help.
  We need a solution that helps all our ports, like those on the west 
coast, those in Pennsylvania, those in Massachusetts that pay the tax. 
We collect $20 on every can that comes across the dock, and we don't 
get any money because we don't dredge. We've got a 70-foot draft, but 
we do have problems with our seawall. We have big infrastructure needs 
all across, and nearly half the money that's raised never is spent in 
the port where it is raised.
  Now, we compete with international ports. We compete with Vancouver, 
and the Canadians are putting in a port at Prince Rupert, and we need 
to maintain our ports to be competitive in this very, very competitive 
industry.
  We have a good geographic location. We're close to Asia, but they're 
going other places because they've got better ports. That's our issue, 
and we would like to have some money later on.
  Thank you very much. I support the amendment.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from southwest Louisiana 
for bringing this amendment forward.
  As a proud cosponsor of the RAMP Act, I support this legislation 
because what we're trying to say here is that you've got people that 
have been paying into this fund. This Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund has 
been there for years, and people have been paying into it, and the 
intention all along was that money would be used to dredge our 
waterways and to upgrade our locks and to keep our infrastructure along 
our waterways up to date so that we can continue moving commerce, not 
only throughout this country, but to be able to export and to be able 
to get commerce through to other countries. The Panama Canal is getting 
ready to come on line in 2013, and even deeper draft vessels are going 
to be coming through. That means we've got to be

[[Page 5114]]

able to meet that demand, otherwise we're going to lose that business 
to foreign nations.
  And yet here you have the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, and that 
money is not even being used for its intended purpose. We've got to 
ensure that the fund cannot be raided for other government spending. 
That's what this amendment does. It's something that will help us 
create jobs and increase the competitiveness of our workers, and it 
will keep that promise that has been made to those people who have been 
paying billions of dollars into this fund, and yet that fund hasn't 
been used properly.
  I support the amendment and urge its passage.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment as the 
lead cosponsor with Mr. Boustany of the RAMP Act, H.R. 104, that had 
approximately over 150 cosponsors on both sides of the aisle, people 
from all corners of the country. This really should be a measure that 
we should move forward on and fully fund, as well as with the language 
that, again, Mr. Boustany crafted to offer here today.
  There, frankly, are other reasons why we called that bill the Restore 
America's Maritime Promise Act, which is that again we're a great 
maritime Nation. In fact, our national defense requires having a strong 
Navy that can navigate all along the coast. And where I'm from, up in 
the State of Connecticut, the Groton sub base needs to be dredged out 
year in and year out. But just like everybody else, it depends on the 
kindness of the Army Corps of Engineers. This is really a priority that 
obviously, as others have said, affects our economy, our exports, and 
also our national defense, and we should support this measure.
  Again, I applaud the gentleman for bringing it forward.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, this is a highway and infrastructure bill, 
which means it is a jobs bill.
  I commend Mr. Boustany in a bipartisan effort to add this as an 
amendment to this bill.
  I represent the Great Lakes. We have a number of commercial as well 
as recreational harbors, but throughout the season we're bringing sand, 
gravel, cement, salt for the winter into our commercial ports. And 
sadly we've had a number of ports close this year in west Michigan, 
where those lake carriers have not been able to get in because they 
need to be dredged.
  This bill allows the Great Lake harbors to be dredged with its 
passage. The difference is this: on a lake carrier, it's about 600 
miles per gallon per ton of cargo that you can ship on a lake carrier 
rather than spending 4 cents or 5 cents on diesel fuel per mile per 
truck. The difference for just my district is you can bring this in 
from the UP and other places into the southern part of Lake Michigan 
rather than trucking it in for hundreds of miles to the closest border.
  This is a good bill and a good amendment. I'm glad to support it.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana has expired. The 
gentleman from West Virginia has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Richmond) and commend him for all his hard work on this 
legislation.
  Mr. RICHMOND. I thank the gentleman, and I join my colleagues from 
Louisiana in supporting this critical amendment.
  What I would add is that we've talked about doubling our exports over 
the next 4 or 5 years, and this is a critical piece to allow us to do 
it. What we realize here in America is that we only make up 5 percent 
of the consumers in the world, and we have to make sure that our 
manufacturers, that our farmers, and that our citizens can get their 
goods to the other 95 percent so that we can continue to build a robust 
economy. This allows us to reduce the cost of our goods around the 
world because we can now ship more goods to market. It's a step in the 
right direction.
  If you look at the fact that only 2 out of our 10 largest seaports 
are dredged to their authorized depth, it continues to move us in the 
right direction so that we can now focus on adequately getting to the 
goal of a depth of 55 feet, which other progressive countries are 
getting to.
  We have to stay competitive, we have to continue to invest in this 
country, and this gives us the best return on our investment. I commend 
him for bringing the amendment. I support it. I would urge my 
colleagues to vote for it.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, has their time expired?
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana has expired.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to give the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) a minute to speak on this.
  The CHAIR. The Chair understands the unanimous consent request to 
provide equal time on both sides.
  Without objection, the gentleman from Louisiana and the gentleman 
from West Virginia each will control 1 additional minute.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I would ask the gentleman if he would close for us.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I've got a radical idea, a radical idea for the people of America. 
Let's use Harbor Maintenance Trust Funds for harbor maintenance. For 25 
years, we've been robbing Peter to pay Paul, but in reality that $7 
billion that we have taken away from that has really been robbing 
places like Manistee, Michigan, where this weekend in my district a 
ship ran aground and had to get towed off and the damage that happened 
to it.
  We have 11 harbors in the Second District, hundreds in the Great 
Lakes and countless in the Nation on both of the coasts and the Gulf of 
Mexico. Enough money has been collected every year to pay for all of 
this maintenance that has to happen, but unfortunately Congress has 
been skimming it to help pay for other programs.
  I appreciate my friend from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), his leadership 
with the RAMP Act, and Chairman Upton from Michigan in leading this in 
the Great Lakes. We know this is the right thing to do for America and 
for our transportation needs, our infrastructure needs. Our Great Lakes 
need it. The coasts need it, our harbors need it, our economy needs 
this to happen.
  I strongly support this amendment today.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute of my final 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Ways 
and Means committee, Mr. Richard Neal.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, everybody has heard of Gloucester and Boston, 
and certainly connected it to the Mayflower. The most famous ports in 
America perhaps are located in Massachusetts, so I want to be 
supportive of Mr. Boustany's amendment today.
  Today, Massachusetts seaports continue to play an important role. The 
Port of Boston's overall activity supports 34,000 jobs. It contributes 
more than $2 billion to the local, regional, and national economies. 
America's ports provide a vital gateway to international trade by 
facilitating the transport of cargo around the world; yet many ports 
around the country, including those in Massachusetts, are in need of 
maintenance.
  In fact, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates that the 
dimensions at the Nation's busiest 59 ports are available less than 35 
percent of the time. Even though users of our Nation's waterways are 
paying significant amounts of money into the trust fund to maintain our 
ports, these dollars are not being spent on the ports, and the trust 
fund has a surplus of $6.4 billion.
  Mr. Boustany's amendment addresses this situation. It makes a good 
deal of sense. We have held a hearing at the Ways and Means Select 
Revenue Subcommittee, and there was bipartisan support for his 
legislation.

[[Page 5115]]

  I urge support for the Boustany amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  As a Representative of the great seafaring State of West Virginia, I 
rise in support of the gentleman's legislation as well.
  Really, ports are important to my State. We export a great deal of 
coal out of my district to the Port of Norfolk. The northern part of 
West Virginia's coal goes to the Port of Baltimore, so harbors and 
ports are very important to West Virginia and for the movement of our 
coal from the State to its world customers.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), as 
well, for the tremendous work he has done on this legislation. For far 
too long, we have been collecting far more resources in the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund than we have transferred to the Corps of 
Engineers for their O&M activities, to the point where in the current 
fiscal year, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is expected to have an 
unexpended balance of over $8 billion by the end of the year.
  I support the gentleman's efforts to use these funds for maintenance 
dredging rather than to cover the general expenditures of the U.S. 
Treasury. However, in my view, this amendment does not go far enough 
because it strips out any enforcement mechanism should this language be 
ignored.
  In addition, the language also ignores concerns expressed by our 
committee colleague, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water 
Resources and Environment, Mr. Bishop of New York, on ensuring an 
equitable distribution of trust fund dollars between our Nation's 
large, midsize, and small commercial harbors.
  I do look forward to working on these critical issues as we continue 
our discussion on a long-term surface transportation bill in 
conference, which we call for today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I support the Boustany amendment. 
I have been a long-time supporter of the RAMP Act. I represent the Port 
of Houston. We pay into the harbor maintenance trust fund, but we get 
far less out than we pay in. In fact, we get far less out than we need. 
We are facing a dredging crisis in upcoming years if we cannot get more 
harbor maintenance funding.
  I am proud to represent the Port of Houston. The work that happens 
here and the commerce that is moved through here support the economy of 
the entire region. The Port is the largest foreign tonnage port and the 
largest petrochemical port in the country. In fact, it moves the second 
largest amount of cargo in the country. 8.5% of our nation's cargo 
moves through the Port of Houston. The commerce that occurs at our port 
is critical to our nation's energy and chemical sectors and to our 
country's ability to trade and move goods.
  In 1998, the Federal Government invested $700 million in deepening 
and widening the Houston Ship Channel. An investment we have benefitted 
from tremendously. However, as the years have passed silt has settled 
and reduced the draft in the channel significantly. Today, only .4% of 
the channel is dredged to its proper depth across the entire width of 
the channel. That is astounding. Our nation's investment is rapidly 
deteriorating. It is time that our government renews its commitment to 
maintaining the Port.
  This is as important as ever as we face new business opportunities 
that are created by the expansion of the Panama Canal.
  The Texas Transportation Institute performed a study and determined 
that a direct economic impact of the loss of 1 foot of draft is $373 
million. The majority of this impact is lost business opportunities due 
to light loading of non-containerized vessels. If the dredging crisis 
at the port continues to worsen, this cost will quickly accelerate.
  This amendment will help alleviate the crisis. The Port of Houston 
will get more desperately needed dredging funding. I strongly support 
this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, our Nation's ports are critical drivers for 
local economies and I am disturbed by the chronic underfunding of 
maintenance activities to allow for their maximum efficiency. The 
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund was set up to address this growing 
concern and I continue to support the full expenditure of those funds 
for this purpose.
  In my part of the country, thousand foot Lakers carry the iron ore, 
limestone, coal, and sand that support the manufacturing industries, 
which employ thousands of hard working Americans. Without efficient, 
reliable shipping through ports like Toledo, Cleveland, Sandusky, and 
Lorain, those plants could not afford to do business in the United 
States.
  These ships are also carrying millions of tons of grain and other 
food commodities that make dinner affordable for our working families, 
and they are helping American farmers reach other countries, helping to 
balance our trade deficit. Thriving ports make this all possible.
  And shipping itself directly supports nearly 50,000 jobs in the Great 
Lakes region alone. Nationally, that number is much higher.
  Unfortunately, American shipping is at risk. Huge backlogs in 
dredging maintenance are causing ships to operate at reduced capacity 
or overlook some ports where navigation has become impossible.
  Insufficient maintenance is undermining our national competitiveness. 
While the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund collects critical revenue to 
keep our ports and waterways open, only half those funds are currently 
spent. Those critical dollars should be fully expended for their 
intended purpose, keeping our ports open for business.
  I am a cosponsor of the RAMP Act and rise in support of the Boustany 
Amendment. I hope to continue working with Representative Boustany and 
other colleagues as we move towards a final bill to ensure that this 
critical issue of Harbor Maintenance is included.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Ribble

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

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

                  TITLE IV--ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING

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

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

     SEC. 402. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

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

     SEC. 403. EXEMPTION IN EMERGENCIES.

        If any road, highway, or bridge is in operation or under 
     construction when damaged by an emergency declared by the 
     Governor of the State and concurred in by the Secretary, or 
     declared by the President pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5121), and is reconstructed in the same location with the 
     same capacity, dimensions, and design as before the 
     emergency, then that reconstruction project shall be exempt 
     from any further environmental reviews, approvals, licensing, 
     and permit requirements under--
       (1) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
       (2) sections 402 and 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342, 1344);
       (3) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 
     et seq.);

[[Page 5116]]

       (4) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.);
       (5) the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et 
     seq.);
       (6) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 
     et seq.);
       (7) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.), except when the reconstruction occurs in designated 
     critical habitat for threatened and endangered species;
       (8) Executive Order 11990 (42 U.S.C. 4321 note; relating to 
     the protection of wetlands); and
       (9) any Federal law (including regulations) requiring no 
     net loss of wetlands.

     SEC. 404. ADVANCE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS.

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

     SEC. 405. STANDARDS.

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

     SEC. 406. LETTING OF CONTRACTS.

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

[[Page 5117]]

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 408. FUNDING THRESHOLD.

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

     SEC. 409. EFFICIENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS FOR PROJECT 
                   DECISIONMAKING.

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

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

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

[[Page 5118]]

       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Limitations on the evaluation of impacts evaluated in 
     prior environmental documents.--
       ``(i) In general.--The lead agency may not reevaluate, and 
     a Federal agency may not require the reevaluation of, 
     cumulative impacts or growth-inducing impacts where such 
     impacts were previously evaluated in--

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

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

     SEC. 410. DISPOSAL OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES.

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

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

     SEC. 411. INTEGRATION OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

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

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

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Environmental review process.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `environmental review process' 
     means the process for preparing for a project an 
     environmental impact statement, environmental assessment,

[[Page 5119]]

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

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

     SEC. 412. DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAMMATIC MITIGATION PLANS.

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

     ``Sec.  168. Development of programmatic mitigation plans

       ``(a) In General.--As part of the statewide or metropolitan 
     transportation planning process, a State or metropolitan 
     planning organization may develop one or more programmatic 
     mitigation plans to address the potential environmental 
     impacts of future transportation projects.
       ``(b) Scope.--
       ``(1) Scale.--A programmatic mitigation plan may be 
     developed on a regional, ecosystem, watershed, or statewide 
     scale.
       ``(2) Resources.--The plan may encompass multiple 
     environmental resources within a defined geographic area or 
     may focus on a specific resource, such as aquatic resources, 
     parklands, or wildlife habitat.
       ``(3) Project impacts.--The plan may address impacts from 
     all projects in a defined

[[Page 5120]]

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 414. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DELIVERY PROGRAM.

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

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

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

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

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

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a program 
     to eliminate duplicative environmental reviews and approvals 
     under State and Federal law of projects. Under this program, 
     a State may use State laws and procedures to conduct reviews 
     and make approvals in lieu of Federal environmental laws and 
     regulations, consistent with the provisions of this section.
       ``(2) Participating states.--All States are eligible to 
     participate in the program.
       ``(3) Scope of alternative review and approval 
     procedures.--For purposes of this section, alternative 
     environmental review and approval procedures may include one 
     or more of the following:
       ``(A) Substitution of one or more State environmental laws 
     for one or more Federal environmental laws, if the Secretary 
     determines in accordance with this section that the State 
     environmental laws provide environmental protection and 
     opportunities for public involvement that are substantially 
     equivalent to the applicable Federal environmental laws.
       ``(B) Substitution of one or more State regulations for 
     Federal regulations implementing one or more Federal 
     environmental laws, if the Secretary determines in accordance 
     with this section that the State regulations provide 
     environmental protection and opportunities for public 
     involvement that are substantially equivalent to the Federal 
     regulations.
       ``(b) Application.--To participate in the program, a State 
     shall submit to the Secretary an application containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require, including--
       ``(1) a full and complete description of the proposed 
     alternative environmental review and approval procedures of 
     the State;
       ``(2) for each State law or regulation included in the 
     proposed alternative environmental review and approval 
     procedures of the State, an explanation of the basis for 
     concluding that the law or regulation meets the requirements 
     under subsection (a)(3); and

[[Page 5121]]

       ``(3) evidence of having sought, received, and addressed 
     comments on the proposed application from the public and 
     appropriate Federal environmental resource agencies.
       ``(c) Review of Application.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) review an application submitted under subsection (b);
       ``(2) approve or disapprove the application in accordance 
     with subsection (d) not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the receipt of the application; and
       ``(3) transmit to the State notice of the approval or 
     disapproval, together with a statement of the reasons for the 
     approval or disapproval.
       ``(d) Approval of State Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall approve each such 
     application if the Secretary finds that the proposed 
     alternative environmental review and approval procedures of 
     the State are substantially equivalent to the applicable 
     Federal environmental laws and Federal regulations.
       ``(2) Exclusion.--The National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the Endangered Species Act 
     of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) shall not apply to any 
     decision by the Secretary to approve or disapprove any 
     application submitted pursuant to this section.
       ``(e) Compliance With Permits.--Compliance with a permit or 
     other approval of a project issued pursuant to a program 
     approved by the Secretary under this section shall be deemed 
     compliance with the Federal laws and regulations identified 
     in the program approved by the Secretary pursuant to this 
     section.
       ``(f) Review and Termination.--
       ``(1) Review.--All State alternative environmental review 
     and approval procedures approved under this section shall be 
     reviewed by the Secretary not less than once every 5 years.
       ``(2) Public notice and comment.--In conducting the review 
     process under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide 
     notice and an opportunity for public comment.
       ``(3) Extensions and terminations.--At the conclusion of 
     the review process, the Secretary may extend the State 
     alternative environmental review and approval procedures for 
     an additional 5-year period or terminate the State program.
       ``(g) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this section and annually thereafter, 
     the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that 
     describes the administration of the program.
       ``(h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Environmental law.--The term `environmental law' 
     includes any law that provides procedural or substantive 
     protection, as applicable, for the natural or built 
     environment with regard to the construction and operation of 
     projects.
       ``(2) Federal environmental laws.--The term `Federal 
     environmental laws' means laws governing the review of 
     environmental impacts of, and issuance of permits and other 
     approvals for, the construction and operation of projects, 
     including section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)), section 404 of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), section 
     106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 
     470f), and sections 7(a)(2), 9(a)(1)(B), and 10(a)(1)(B) of 
     the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2), 
     1538(a)(1)(B), 1539(a)(1)(B)).
       ``(3) Multimodal project.--The term `multimodal project' 
     means a project funded, in whole or in part, under this title 
     or chapter 53 of title 49 and involving the participation of 
     more than one Department of Transportation administration or 
     agency.
       ``(4) Project.--The term `project' means any highway 
     project, public transportation capital project, or multimodal 
     project that requires the approval of the Secretary.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter (as 
     amended by title I of this Act) is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:

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

     SEC. 416. STATE PERFORMANCE OF LEGAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEWS.

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 417. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall treat an activity 
     carried out under title 23, United States Code, or project 
     within a right-of-way as a class of action categorically 
     excluded from the requirements relating to environmental 
     assessments or environmental impact statements under section 
     771.117(c) of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Multimodal project.--The term ``multimodal project'' 
     means a project funded, in whole or in part, under title 23, 
     United States Code, or chapter 53 of title 49 of such Code 
     and involving the participation of more than one Department 
     of Transportation administration or agency.
       (2) Project.--The term ``project'' means any highway 
     project, public transportation capital project, or multimodal 
     project that requires the approval of the Secretary.

     SEC. 418. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS DEADLINE.

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

     SEC. 419. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Alternative Relocation Payment Process.--
       (1) Establishment.--For the purpose of identifying 
     improvements in the timeliness of providing relocation 
     assistance to persons displaced as a result of Federal or 
     federally-assisted programs and projects, the Secretary shall 
     establish an alternative relocation payment process under 
     which payments to displaced persons eligible for relocation

[[Page 5122]]

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

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

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

     ``SEC. 214. AGENCY COORDINATION.

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

[[Page 5123]]

     including depreciation on engineering and road-building 
     equipment, shall be credited to the applicable 
     appropriation.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 619, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, the folders that I am holding here 
represent our dysfunctional Federal bureaucracy. They provide a stark 
example of the burdensome red tape that a Wisconsin business must go 
through just to get approval of a single project.
  Mr. Chairman, in this folder is when the county controls a project. 
This folder is when the State controls the project. Mr. Chairman, this 
folder is when the Federal Government controls the project.
  Well, these examples aren't specifically for a highway project. They 
are emblematic of the bureaucracy our Federal Government imposes in 
northeastern Wisconsin and across the Nation. My amendment today will 
smooth the road for our infrastructure projects by reducing the 
redundant permitting requirements that prevent us from rebuilding our 
roads and bridges across this country.
  My amendment includes many of the practical reforms that I and my 
colleagues on the Transportation Committee have championed under 
Chairman Mica's leadership. Today, the average life span of a 
construction project is 15 years, but only 5 of those years involve 
actual on-the-ground construction.
  Let me say that again. At least 10 years of a project are not spent 
building anything, but instead are spent filling thousands of folders 
just like these with millions of pages of paperwork.
  My amendment expedites this process. In some cases we can cut this 
timeline in half merely by allowing the Federal and State agencies to 
work together. How about that for an idea, to work together on the 
review and permitting process.
  My amendment sets hard deadlines for Federal agencies to approve 
infrastructure projects, no longer leaving them in limbo. There has 
been a lot of talk about shovel-ready projects in recent years. Well, 
my amendment will help States, municipalities, and contractors to put 
their pencils down and, Mr. Chairman, pick the shovels up. It's exactly 
what we need in a time when our economy is struggling.
  The Federal Government needs to stop putting up roadblocks to job 
creation and figure out ways to make things easier and less costly. My 
amendment would do just that.
  It also exempts certain unplanned emergencies from some of the review 
processes. When a State or city is hit by damaging storms or unexpected 
flooding, our top priority should be to get our roads and bridges 
repaired, not subjecting our communities to an endless permitting 
process that may further harm their quality of life.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is not perfect, but then again 
no bill ever is. However, my amendment will put us on the road to 
reforming how we build and maintain our infrastructure throughout this 
country, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
  I am going to ask the gentleman from Wisconsin a question about his 
amendment.
  You might remember in committee that I managed to convince the 
majority to strip a provision in the underlying bill that would have 
waived all laws at the discretion of the President of the United States 
to do projects of national competitiveness.
  Mr. RIBBLE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Our amendment takes that----
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I know. You don't have that and I appreciate that; but 
in your amendment, from the original bill, you took this language:

       The Secretary shall treat an activity carried out under 
     title 23, United States Code, or project within a right-of-
     way as a class of action categorically excluded from the 
     requirements relating to environmental assessments or 
     environmental impact statements.

  That means all Federal highway projects would be exempt from any 
environmental review. Don't you think that's a little over the top? 
That's a little more than streamlining it, and that's not just within 
existing rights-of-way. That is, acquire a new right-of-way, build an 
eight-lane road and no environmental review? Don't you think, I mean, 
that might be a little bit over the edge?

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. RIBBLE. If the gentleman will yield, it's just in the right-of-
way, though.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. No, it says ``or.'' ``Or a project within a right-of-
way.'' You have at least a drafting problem here, if not an intentional 
problem.
  This exempts any project under title 23, which means a brand new 
highway 8, 12, 15 lanes wide, newly acquired right-of-way, with no 
environmental review.
  Mr. RIBBLE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. RIBBLE. I can say this to you, that I have full confidence in 
your State's environmental protection. I have full confidence in the 
leaders in the State of Wisconsin.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, I don't have confidence in a lot of 
people in a lot of States and I do think the American people deserve at 
least some protection. Now, I can understand the impatience with some 
of the bureaucracy--I share it--particularly when it comes to transit 
projects and other things and giving States authority, like we've done 
to California.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. But for the gentleman to say that we'll just let the 
States decide whether or not there will be any environmental review of 
a major new highway project is extraordinary to me--using Federal 
money. If they want to use the State money and they want to say there 
are no laws that apply and we're just going to build this Chinese 
method of here comes the bulldozer, get out of the way, get out of your 
house, here it comes, fine. States are like that. They do it with their 
own money, and people of that State can deal with it. But for the 
Federal Government to say, We wash our hands of this and you can do 
anything you want with Federal taxpayer dollars, constructing major new 
highways with no review, I think that's a little over the top.
  Mr. RIBBLE. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him on 
his amendment.
  I think it's a great amendment. As a freshman, you have done 
tremendous work on the committee. And you've been in Washington only a 
year-and-a-half, and yet you brought a shovel here. That shovel shovels 
more than just dirt. It shovels other stuff that happens here in 
Washington. And it's time we clear some of that out to be able to 
streamline building roads and highways in this country.
  And that's what your amendment does. It cuts bureaucratic red tape, 
allows the Federal agencies to review transportation projects 
concurrently, which is extremely important. It delegates project 
approval authority to the States, establishes hard deadlines to Federal 
agencies to make decisions on permits, which is going to definitely 
speed up the process. It expands the list of activities that qualify 
for categorical exclusions, an approval process that's faster and 
simpler than the standard process. The environmental protections do 
remain in place.
  I disagree with the gentleman from Oregon. I have all the confidence 
in the world that what the gentleman has in

[[Page 5124]]

his amendment here will allow just what's in the right-of-way. That's 
what we interpreted, and I believe that's how the States will interpret 
it. So I have all the confidence that this amendment is properly 
prepared and we're going to pass it here on the floor today.
  So, again, these are practical reforms. Time is money, and anybody 
that's been in business knows time is money. And that's what these 
reforms are going to do: reduce the time, which will reduce the cost to 
get us highways and bridges built faster in this country.
  I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble) on his excellent 
work and his work on this committee and also the chairman for his 
tireless efforts in bringing the extension to the floor. And as we move 
into conference, I'm confident we're going to come up with something 
that's better than we see from the other side.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
While I strongly support the efficient review of projects to ensure 
timely project delivery, I believe it is possible to balance these 
needs with adequate opportunity for public input. Unfortunately, the 
provisions in the Ribble amendment are far beyond balanced and would 
severely limit public input into surface transportation decisions.
  In effect, the amendment places a roadblock on public participation 
in reviewing transportation projects by limiting and, in certain cases, 
outright waiving NEPA. That goes far beyond streamlining. Locking the 
public out of the decisionmaking process is steamrolling our 
constituents and local governments.
  The most galling aspect of this amendment is that it would completely 
exempt any and all highway projects where the Federal share of the 
costs is less than $10 million or 15 percent of project costs from the 
requirements to provide public participation and an analysis of 
alternatives in the project decisionmaking process.
  Proponents of the amendment argue that NEPA and other laws are 
causing years of project delays. That's simply not true. According to 
the U.S. Department of Transportation, the vast majority of projects 
delivered both by the Federal Highway Administration and the FTA--96 
percent, to be exact--already go through minimal NEPA review, meaning 
that all NEPA compliance is completed within 2\1/4\ months to 6 months. 
Ironically, this amendment could increase those delays by excluding the 
public from participation in the project review process and increasing 
the likelihood of public opposition to a project, leading to greater 
delays in project delivery.
  Now, many of us know the public, if they're locked out of a 
decisionmaking project or review process where they feel they have a 
legitimate right to participate, where are they going to go? They're 
going to go to the courts and sue. Does the gentleman think that the 
judicial process, when you have to face lawsuit after lawsuit after 
lawsuit, is going to be streamlining the process? I think not. We're 
looking at a longer process there than any environmental review would 
ever entail.
  Again, while I strongly support efficient review and sufficient 
review of projects to ensure timely project delivery, this amendment 
goes too far. It undermines public participation in local decisions and 
could potentially create greater problems of project delivery. And I 
would urge the defeat of the gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RIBBLE. I do want to thank the ranking member. We do have a 
disagreement, and disagreements happen in this Chamber a lot. But 
anyone who's traveled our roads and highways and tried to cross bridges 
that have been falling apart, that are filled with potholes, that have 
needed repairs for, sometimes, decades recognizes the real cost and 
real cause of the delay.
  Mr. Chairman, I would note that my amendment in no way eliminates 
NEPA or the need for an environmental review to occur. However, our 
current process reduces redundant submissions, and approvals can render 
a road project obsolete before the ground has ever been broken.
  My amendment merely ensures that Federal and State governments get to 
actually work together in doing the review. They get to work together 
to do this. And unlike others, I have full confidence in the people 
that live in the States where this work is going to be done. They're 
the neighbors of these road projects. They're the ones that swim in the 
lakes and streams and drink the water, breathe the air. They're the 
ones that live there. They ought to have more say on how these projects 
are completed, and we can actually get more projects done because of 
this.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin will be 
postponed.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. McKinley

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

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

                  TITLE IV--COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS

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

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

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

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

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

       ``(iv) a legal certification that the State has, at the 
     time of certification, fully effective statutes or 
     regulations necessary to implement a coal combustion 
     residuals permit program that meets the specifications 
     described in subsection (c)(1); and
       ``(v) copies of State statutes and regulations described in 
     clause (iv).
       ``(3) Maintenance of 4005(c) or 3006 program.--In order to 
     adopt or implement a coal combustion residuals permit program 
     under this section (including pursuant to subsection (f)), 
     the State agency responsible for implementing a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program in a State shall maintain 
     an approved program under section 4005(c) or an authorized 
     program under section 3006.
       ``(c) Permit Program Specifications.--
       ``(1) Minimum requirements.--The specifications described 
     in this subsection for a

[[Page 5125]]

     coal combustion residuals permit program are as follows:
       ``(A) The revised criteria described in paragraph (2) shall 
     apply to a coal combustion residuals permit program, except 
     as provided in paragraph (3).
       ``(B) Each structure shall be, in accordance with generally 
     accepted engineering standards for the structural integrity 
     of such structures, designed, constructed, and maintained to 
     provide for containment of the maximum volumes of coal 
     combustion residuals appropriate for the structure. If a 
     structure is determined by the head of the agency responsible 
     for implementing the coal combustion residuals permit program 
     to be deficient, the head of such agency has authority to 
     require action to correct the deficiency according to a 
     schedule determined by such agency. If the identified 
     deficiency is not corrected according to such schedule, the 
     head of such agency has authority to require that the 
     structure close in accordance with subsection (h).
       ``(C) The coal combustion residuals permit program shall 
     apply the revised criteria promulgated pursuant to section 
     4010(c) for location, design, groundwater monitoring, 
     corrective action, financial assurance, closure, and post-
     closure described in paragraph (2) and the specifications 
     described in this paragraph to surface impoundments.
       ``(D) If a structure that is classified as posing a high 
     hazard potential pursuant to the guidelines published by the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency entitled `Federal 
     Guidelines for Dam Safety: Hazard Potential Classification 
     System for Dams' (FEMA Publication Number 333) is determined 
     by the head of the agency responsible for implementing the 
     coal combustion residuals permit program to be deficient with 
     respect to the structural integrity requirement in 
     subparagraph (B), the head of such agency has authority to 
     require action to correct the deficiency according to a 
     schedule determined by such agency. If the identified 
     deficiency is not corrected according to such schedule, the 
     head of such agency has authority to require that the 
     structure close in accordance with subsection (h).
       ``(E) New structures that first receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section shall 
     be constructed with a base located a minimum of two feet 
     above the upper limit of the natural water table.
       ``(F) In the case of a coal combustion residuals permit 
     program implemented by a State, the State has the authority 
     to inspect structures and implement and enforce such permit 
     program.
       ``(G) In the case of a coal combustion residuals permit 
     program implemented by a State, the State has the authority 
     to address wind dispersal of dust from coal combustion 
     residuals by requiring dust control measures, as determined 
     appropriate by the head of the lead State agency responsible 
     for implementing the coal combustion residuals permit 
     program.
       ``(2) Revised criteria.--The revised criteria described in 
     this paragraph are--
       ``(A) the revised criteria for design, groundwater 
     monitoring, corrective action, closure, and post-closure, for 
     structures, including--
       ``(i) for new structures, and lateral expansions of 
     existing structures, that first receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     revised criteria regarding design requirements described in 
     section 258.40 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(ii) for all structures that receive coal combustion 
     residuals after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     revised criteria regarding groundwater monitoring and 
     corrective action requirements described in subpart E of part 
     258 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, except that, 
     for the purposes of this paragraph, such revised criteria 
     shall also include--

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

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

[[Page 5126]]

       ``(ii) not later than 6 months after the date of such 
     notification, submitting to the Administrator a certification 
     under subsection (b)(2); and
       ``(iii) receiving from the Administrator--

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

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

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

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

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

       ``(2) Review of determination.--
       ``(A) Determination required.--The Administrator shall make 
     a determination under paragraph (1) not later than 90 days 
     after the date on which the State submits a certification 
     under paragraph (1)(A)(ii) or (1)(C)(ii), or notifies the 
     Administrator that the deficiencies have been remedied 
     pursuant to paragraph (1)(B)(i), as applicable.
       ``(B) Review.--A State may obtain a review of a 
     determination by the Administrator under paragraph (1) as if 
     such determination was a final regulation for purposes of 
     section 7006.
       ``(3) Implementation during transition.--
       ``(A) Effect on actions and orders.--Actions taken or 
     orders issued pursuant to a coal combustion residuals permit 
     program shall remain in effect if--
       ``(i) a State takes control of its coal combustion 
     residuals permit program from the Administrator under 
     paragraph (1); or
       ``(ii) the Administrator takes control of a coal combustion 
     residuals permit program from a State under subsection (e).
       ``(B) Change in requirements.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply 
     to such actions and orders until such time as the 
     Administrator or the head of the lead State agency 
     responsible for implementing the coal combustion residuals 
     permit program, as applicable--
       ``(i) implements changes to the requirements of the coal 
     combustion residuals permit program with respect to the basis 
     for the action or order; or
       ``(ii) certifies the completion of a corrective action that 
     is the subject of the action or order.
       ``(4) Single permit program.--If a State adopts and 
     implements a coal combustion residuals permit program under 
     this subsection, the Administrator shall cease to implement 
     the permit program implemented under subsection (e) for such 
     State.
       ``(g) Effect on Determination Under 4005(c) or 3006.--The 
     Administrator shall not consider the implementation of a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program by the Administrator 
     under subsection (e) in making a determination of approval 
     for a permit program or other system of prior approval and 
     conditions under section 4005(c) or of authorization for a 
     program under section 3006.
       ``(h) Closure.--If it is determined, pursuant to a coal 
     combustion residuals permit program, that a structure should 
     close, the time period and method for the closure of such 
     structure shall be set forth in a closure plan that 
     establishes a deadline for completion and that takes into 
     account the nature and the site-specific characteristics of 
     the structure to be closed. In the case of a surface 
     impoundment, the closure plan shall require, at a minimum, 
     the removal of liquid and the stabilization of remaining 
     waste, as necessary to support the final cover.
       ``(i) Authority.--
       ``(1) State authority.--Nothing in this section shall 
     preclude or deny any right of any State to adopt or enforce 
     any regulation or requirement respecting coal combustion 
     residuals that is more stringent or broader in scope than a 
     regulation or requirement under this section.
       ``(2) Authority of the administrator.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (e) of 
     this section and section 6005 of this title, the 
     Administrator shall, with respect to the regulation of coal 
     combustion residuals, defer to the States pursuant to this 
     section.
       ``(B) Imminent hazard.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect the authority of the Administrator under 
     section 7003 with respect to coal combustion residuals.
       ``(C) Technical and enforcement assistance only upon 
     request.--Upon request from the head of a lead State agency 
     that is implementing a coal combustion residuals permit 
     program, the Administrator may provide to such State agency 
     only the technical or enforcement assistance requested.
       ``(3) Citizen suits.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect the authority of a person to commence a 
     civil action in accordance with section 7002.
       ``(j) Mine Reclamation Activities.--A coal combustion 
     residuals permit program implemented under subsection (e) by 
     the Administrator shall not apply to the utilization, 
     placement, and storage of coal combustion residuals at 
     surface mining and reclamation operations.
       ``(k) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Coal combustion residuals.--The term `coal combustion 
     residuals' means--
       ``(A) the solid wastes listed in section 3001(b)(3)(A)(i), 
     including recoverable materials from such wastes;
       ``(B) coal combustion wastes that are co-managed with 
     wastes produced in conjunction with the combustion of coal, 
     provided that such wastes are not segregated and disposed of 
     separately from the coal combustion wastes and comprise a 
     relatively small proportion of the total wastes being 
     disposed in the structure;
       ``(C) fluidized bed combustion wastes;
       ``(D) wastes from the co-burning of coal with non-hazardous 
     secondary materials provided that coal makes up at least 50 
     percent of the total fuel burned; and
       ``(E) wastes from the co-burning of coal with materials 
     described in subparagraph (A) that are recovered from 
     monofills.
       ``(2) Coal combustion residuals permit program.--The term 
     `coal combustion residuals permit program' means a permit 
     program or other system of prior approval and conditions that 
     is adopted by or for a State for the management and disposal 
     of coal combustion residuals to the extent such activities 
     occur in structures in such State.
       ``(3) Structure.--The term `structure' means a landfill, 
     surface impoundment, or other land-based unit which may 
     receive coal combustion residuals.
       ``(4) Revised criteria.--The term `revised criteria' means 
     the criteria promulgated for municipal solid waste landfill 
     units under section 4004(a) and under section 1008(a)(3), as 
     revised under section 4010(c) in accordance with the 
     requirement of such section that the criteria protect human 
     health and the environment.''.
       (b) 2000 Regulatory Determination.--Nothing in this 
     section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be 
     construed to alter in any manner the Environmental Protection 
     Agency's regulatory determination entitled ``Notice of 
     Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the Combustion of 
     Fossil Fuels'', published at 65 Fed. Reg. 32214 (May 22, 
     2000), that the fossil fuel combustion wastes addressed in 
     that determination do not warrant regulation under subtitle C 
     of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.).
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents contained 
     in section 1001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 4010 the 
     following:

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

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

[[Page 5127]]

mind, 60 million tons of fly ash are recycled annually.
  Let's read some quotes from some of the individuals that have talked 
about this.
  The Veritas Economic Consulting report talks about 316,000 jobs. 
There's one from the American Road and Transportation Builders 
Association talking about the $100 billion. Here's one from the Home 
Builders Association:

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

                              {time}  1540

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

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

  Here from the same Department:

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

  From the Department of Transportation:

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

  And the last:

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

  So what does EPA say? Their own statement:

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

  Mr. Chairman, let's be honest. What we're relating to here is about 
the use of fly ash in concrete that's been for over 80 years. Anyone 
opposing this legislation clearly has an agenda, and that agenda is 
anticoal. So that's why I'm asking my colleagues to join me today in 
supporting this amendment, once again, and protecting 316,000 jobs and 
maximizing the highway funds available for upgrading our roads and 
bridges all across America.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition; 
although, I am in support of the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from West Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  President Obama has already threatened to veto this legislation 
because it circumvents the longstanding process for reviewing the 
potentially dangerous Keystone XL pipeline. The McKinley amendment 
would add another extraneous provision to the underlying bill. This 
amendment would prevent EPA from regulating toxic coal ash and would 
put our Nation's drinking water and public health at greater risk.
  On December 22, 2008, a coal ash impoundment in Kingston, Tennessee, 
burst, releasing 5.4 million cubic yards of toxic sludge, blanketing 
the Emory River and surrounding land and creating a Superfund site that 
could cost up to $1.2 billion to clean up.
  At hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee, we heard testimony 
about the devastating impacts contamination from coal combustion wastes 
can cause. We learned of contaminated drinking water supplies and 
ruined property values. We learned that improper disposal of coal ash 
can both present catastrophic risks from ruptures of containment 
structures and cause cancer and other illnesses from long-term exposure 
to leaking chemicals.
  Two years ago, EPA proposed regulations to ensure stronger oversight 
of coal ash impoundments in order to prevent disasters like the one at 
Kingston and to protect groundwater and drinking water from the threat 
of contamination. The agency had proposed two alternatives for 
regulating coal combustion residuals. One proposal was to regulate 
these wastes under subtitle C of the Resources Conservation Recovery 
Act, or RCRA, as a hazardous waste. The other proposal was to regulate 
under subtitle D of RCRA as a nonhazardous solid waste.
  Under both proposals, there would be a minimum Federal standard 
developed to protect human health and the environment. Those standards 
would address wet impoundments, like in Kingston, and would also ensure 
that basic controls like the use of liners, groundwater monitoring, and 
dust control meet a minimum level of effectiveness.
  But this amendment blocks both of EPA's proposals. It replaces those 
proposals with an ineffective program that will not ensure the safe 
disposal of coal ash, won't protect public health, and won't protect 
the environment. We could and we should do better.
  Under each of our environmental laws, Congress has always established 
a legal standard when delegating programs to the States. These 
standards are the yardsticks by which it is determined whether a 
State's efforts measure up. They ensure a minimum level of effort and 
protection throughout the Nation. This approach has worked well because 
it prevents a race to the bottom by the States.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. WAXMAN. This legislation does not include any legal standard to 
establish a minimum level of safety, and to the extent new safety 
requirements are established, nearly all of them can be waived at a 
State's discretion.
  This legislation appears to create a program, but the decision about 
whether or not to go forward is one that will be at the States' 
discretion. The result will inevitably be uneven and inconsistent rules 
between the States. Some will do a good job and others won't.
  If this legislation is adopted, no one should be fooled. This bill 
won't protect communities living near these waste disposal sites.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, just a quick couple of observations, just 
to remind everyone, we've been using fly ash in concrete for over 80 
years, and the President has not--has not--issued a veto threat on this 
legislation. Perhaps he's aware of the 316,000 jobs that others are not 
as concerned about.
  I want to thank my colleague from West Virginia for cosponsoring this 
legislation, and I hope he will continue to help us find the bipartisan 
support in protecting the jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia has 1\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McKINLEY. I'm going to yield time to the gentleman from Michigan, 
the chairman of the committee, for the purpose of closing.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 75 seconds.
  Mr. UPTON. I would just like to remind the House that this amendment 
is the same bill that the House passed last year with a vote of 267-
144. We moved this through regular order through our committee 
hearings, subcommittee and full committee markup, and I want to say, as 
I recall, by nearly a 3 1 margin in the full committee did we pass this 
amendment.
  This amendment establishes a program that protects human health and 
environment. It requires groundwater monitoring and requires that 
States monitor for the same constituents that EPA identified as being 
important for the regulation of coal ash. The amendment also requires 
that States require liners for new structures and establishes 
appropriate controls on fugitive dust.
  For 2 years, EPA has been considering regulating coal ash. This bill 
would allow the safe use of coal ash in such products as concrete, 
wallboard, and roofing shingles. As the gentleman from West Virginia 
said, it saves 316,000 jobs. This is a highway and infrastructure bill. 
It is a jobs bill. This saves

[[Page 5128]]

American jobs, and it is very important that the House continue to 
support the McKinley amendment, whether it be a freestanding bill, as 
we did last year, or the amendment to this bill.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, back in 1980, former Representative Tom 
Bevill of Alabama and I inserted an amendment into the Solid Waste 
Disposal Act requiring EPA to study and then determine how to regulate 
coal ash. That was in 1980. Today, 32 years later, EPA has not done so 
in a final manner, so I believe it is completely appropriate to place 
this authority within the hands of the State as the pending amendment 
by the gentleman from West Virginia would clearly do.
  In the wake of the 2008 coal waste disaster at a TVA facility, I 
introduced legislation to strengthen the regulation of coal ash 
impoundments. The pending legislation is not perfect in these respects. 
In fact, there are some flaws which need to be worked out further. I 
also believe there are more appropriate ways to gain enactment of the 
provisions of H.R. 2273 which this amendment reflects. In fact, we 
should all note that the bill has already passed the House and been 
sent to the other body where Senators are actually working to achieve a 
bipartisan agreement.

                              {time}  1550

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


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Ribble

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 168]

                               AYES--255

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

                               NOES--165

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

                             NOT VOTING--11

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


                       Announcement by the Chair

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

                              {time}  1618

  Mr. BILBRAY and Ms. HAYWORTH changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, on Wednesday, April 18, 2012, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 168 due to a family medical emergency. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on agreeing to the Ribble 
Amendment No. 2.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 168, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.

[[Page 5129]]

Chaffetz) having assumed the chair, Mr. Westmoreland, Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4348) to 
provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor 
carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway 
Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such 
programs, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 
619, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments 
adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

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

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

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

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

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

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, usually when something is killed, it stays 
dead. But just like a zombie movie, some earmarks refuse to die and 
return to life as wasteful deficit spending. That's what has happened 
with this bill and what my simple commonsense amendment corrects.
  This Congress was supposed to eliminate earmarks, but zombie earmarks 
from prior sessions keep appearing and reappearing and my amendment 
corrects that. Republicans are taking earmarks from previous sessions 
and calling them something else. Is that our new spending plan? Mr. 
Speaker, at a time when we face a massive national deficit and have 
limited resources to address our Nation's transportation needs, the 
pending measure provides billions of dollars for the construction of 
the Alabama Porkway and the Canadian Baconway.
  Mr. Speaker, even as many in Congress have sworn off earmarks, this 
legislation continues funding to the Alabama Porkway, a 65-mile, six-
lane beltway zombie earmark, a massive highway that surrounds the City 
of Birmingham, costing taxpayers billions. In fact, just last year, an 
article in the Birmingham News cited how cost estimates have soared 
from $3.4 billion to $4.7 billion before construction. So costs have 
soared, and now Alabama wants a bailout for their zombie highway, an 
earmark and a bailout.
  Mr. Speaker, I guess the more Washington changes, the more it stays 
the same. The good news is, Mr. Speaker, with this amendment I'm 
calling out this bailout and giving Members on both sides of the aisle 
the opportunity to stop the bailout of the Alabama Porkway.
  In 2004, a Republican Member of Congress added a provision that had 
not been included in either the House or the Senate bill behind closed 
doors to an appropriations bill adding a new 65-mile, six-lane 
Birmingham beltway to the Appalachian Development System. This earmark 
is unprecedented in the Appalachian region's more-than-45-year history. 
Alabama went from receiving 6.2 percent of highway funds to 25 percent 
in one fell swoop. That's good for the Alabama Porkway and those living 
high on the hog, but bad for taxpayers everywhere and worthy projects 
across Appalachia.
  My amendment strikes the windfall bailout and a windfall that comes 
at the expense of 12 other States in the Appalachian region. The money 
comes directly from projects that would have been funded in Georgia, 
Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
  Even many Alabamans understand that this is a waste of Federal 
dollars. If Alabamans want to build a porkway around Birmingham, go 
right ahead. Just don't do it with our tax dollars outside of the 
normal process while competing for their share of Federal dollars.
  Many Alabamans agree. One in the Birmingham News said, ``Spend, 
spend, spend. That's the mantra of the Birmingham beltway and State and 
local government.'' Another Alabaman says, ``As a businessman, I am 
more concerned about the flagrant disregard for the economic damage 
that will be wreaked on Alabama in the long term by the beltline.''
  The beltline goes right through the farm of 88-year-old Ardell 
Turner. She lived her entire life in Alabama. The Northern Beltline 
goes right through her farm that she and her husband have had since 
1950. This is big Federal deficit spending, a big beltway, a big 
porkway right through Ardell's farm.
  My amendment also prohibits construction of highways in foreign 
countries, which this bill contains.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us provides gas tax funds, $30 million a 
year, for a 325-mile Canadian baconway right through the Yukon, out of 
the pocket of American families and into a Canadian baconway.
  The next time my colleagues are at home at a gas station talking to 
constituents, I encourage them to ask their constituents if they think 
our gas tax dollars should be used to build a 325-mile highway in 
Canada or any foreign county.
  Now, this isn't an anti-Canada amendment. In fact, I don't think 
Mexico or Canada should be building highways through the United States. 
What this amendment does is it gives every Member of the House a chance 
to decide if we would rather build highways in Canada or reduce our 
deficit. Our choice.
  If you want to reduce the deficit and make sure there isn't a 
precedent for Mexico or Canada building highways through your State, 
vote ``yes.'' If you want to engage in more deficit spending to build 
expensive highways through the Yukon, vote ``no.''
  My amendment would prohibit the use of any funds provided under this 
act for construction of highways outside of the United States and 
reduce the Federal deficit by over $12 million.

[[Page 5130]]

  Mr. Speaker, on March 2, 2011, I offered an amendment to stop Federal 
taxpayer money from funding the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. Mr. Mica 
gave a response to it and said it was smoke and mirrors. He said it's 
trying to mislead the House and it's smoke and mirrors.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, this is not smoke and mirrors.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. The House cannot hide behind smoke and mirrors, behind 
wasteful pork--from Alabama to the Yukon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I will be very brief.
  The gentleman said that I had said before we had smoke and mirrors, 
and once again we have smoke and mirrors. Every opportunity was given 
to the other side. My committee sat for some 18 hours. They never 
brought this issue up. We heard over 100 Democrat amendments. It was 
not brought up in one of the single 200 amendments proposed to the 
committee.
  What this is is an obstruction to getting people working, to getting 
our infrastructure for this country built. We need to vote down this 
motion to recommit and let's move forward in getting America building 
its infrastructure and getting people to work and affordable energy to 
people that can't even afford to fill up their gas tank today. I've had 
it with these delays.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.


                             Point of Order

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 169]

                               AYES--176

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

                               NOES--242

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

                             NOT VOTING--13

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


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1648

  Mr. MARCHANT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.

[[Page 5131]]

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 170]

                               AYES--293

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

                               NOES--127

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

                             NOT VOTING--11

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

                              {time}  1658

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

                          ____________________