[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8704-8711]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2210
   MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 4348, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 
                     EXTENSION ACT OF 2012, PART II

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Broun of Georgia moves that the managers on the part of 
     the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4348 be 
     instructed to insist on provisions that limit funding out of 
     the Highway Trust Fund (including the Mass Transit Account) 
     for Federal-aid highway and transit programs to amounts that 
     do not exceed $37,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that our country is facing an unprecedented 
fiscal emergency. We're broke as a Nation. While a number of us believe 
that the Federal Government's spending must be limited from the very 
start, it's clear to most of us here that any spending that we do must 
be offset. We cannot continue to build debt for our children and our 
grandchildren.
  In most cases, when we wish to increase spending, we are presented 
with a very difficult choice: whether to increase taxes, as some would 
have us to do, or reduce spending in other areas of

[[Page 8705]]

the Federal Government. But the case before us today, the Federal 
highway system, is different from most Federal programs.
  Much of the spending in the underlying bill is filtered through the 
highway trust fund, which was built on a unique principle of ``user 
pays.'' Unlike most government programs which rely on general tax 
revenues, the programs which provide for new roads and highway 
improvements are paid for by highway users through the 18.4 cents per 
gallon gas tax. It isn't a perfect system, but it was created with a 
built-in accountability measure in mind: that the highway trust fund 
may only give out in obligations the amount in which it takes in 
through gas tax revenues.
  Until recently, this principle worked relatively well. But increasing 
construction costs, stricter federally mandated fuel efficiency 
standards, and a reluctance to increase the gas tax--especially during 
an economic downturn--have led to a decrease in the highway trust 
fund's purchasing power.
  None of these problems should have been a surprise to Congress, Mr. 
Speaker, as many of them were direct results of actions taken by this 
body. Nevertheless, these obstacles should have led us to some sort of 
congressional action in order to keep the highway trust fund--and the 
Federal highway programs as a whole--solvent.
  So what did Congress do? Did we increase the gas tax? Did we reverse 
the fuel efficiency standards? Did we reorganize any of the programs or 
do anything to encourage the production of cheaper fuel here in the 
U.S.? No, absolutely not. When faced with the threat of bankrupting the 
highway trust fund in 2005, Congress did nothing to rein in spending or 
increase revenues. Instead, Congress passed the SAFETEA-LU law, which 
was the biggest, most expensive transportation authorization in 
history. Not surprisingly, by 2009, the highway trust fund was broke. 
Since then, we've passed three separate bailouts of the highway trust 
fund totaling nearly $30 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, I fear that the bill which is currently in conference 
will only lead to more of the same of that deficit spending. My fear is 
supported by numbers from the Congressional Budget Office which show 
that for each of the next 2 years, there is a projected $8 to $9 
billion gap between the likely revenues and the expected outlays within 
the highway trust fund.
  It is important to note, however, that these estimates are developed 
using current budgetary conditions. This means that changes could be 
made during the conference which would prevent this shortfall from 
happening again.
  One approach which has been embraced by many Members is to tie U.S. 
energy production to highway financing. On its face, this approach 
looks like a win-win solution to both drive down gas prices and allow 
for increased investment in transportation infrastructure.
  While I support language to authorize the Keystone pipeline and other 
domestic energy projects, I must caution my colleagues about combining 
such initiatives to pay for a transportation authorization. There are 
many regulatory hurdles that these projects must cross, as well as 
litigation, before they come to fruition. I don't agree with these 
burdens, but they are a reality. Even in the best case scenario, it 
will be years before we see any profits from Keystone or any energy 
development that many of us would like to see us undertake.
  Indeed, using potential energy production to pay for other priorities 
is not new in this body. In fact, the House has voted to allow 
development of the resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
more than 10 times since 1995. But as many of us know, policies that 
are passed here in the House, or even in both bodies, do not always 
take effect as intended.
  While I agree that our Nation's infrastructure needs significant 
help, we simply cannot allow ourselves to spend billions of dollars 
that we simply don't have based on the promise of potential, unrealized 
energy revenues. That's why I have brought this motion to the floor 
tonight.
  My motion to instruct would restore the inherent limits which were 
built into the highway trust fund originally. It would ask that the 
conferees only obligate funds which are equal to what the Congressional 
Budget Office projects that the government will take in via the Federal 
gas tax over the course of fiscal year 2013.
  If my language were added to the bill, it would return discipline to 
a broken program until either additional real revenue becomes available 
or policy changes are made which would relieve the pressure on the 
highway trust fund.
  We are in a fiscal crisis, Mr. Speaker. As a House Member, when I 
evaluate legislation, I ask myself four questions. The first, is it 
right? Is it moral? The second, is it constitutional according to the 
original intent of the Constitution? The third, is it needed? And the 
fourth, can we afford it?
  Given what the conferees are working with, I can't sign off on that 
last question. It is simply not affordable.
  We cannot continue to create more debt. And I'm not the only one who 
feels that way, Mr. Speaker. In fact, likewise, just 2 days ago, the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent a letter to House Members earlier this 
week expressing its fear of an ``impending fiscal cliff.'' In part, the 
letter states that:

       America is accelerating toward a fiscal cliff while at the 
     same time Congress and the President are ignoring a growing 
     long-run fiscal imbalance.

  Mr. Speaker, it seems clear to me that passing the motion before us 
here today would be an important step towards reining in spending and 
allowing us to step back from the precipice on which we find ourselves, 
a precipice of total economic collapse of our Nation.
  Unfortunately, as with every other issue, the debate over 
transportation spending has become ``cuts for thee, but not for me.'' 
The time for such games has ended. My motion would attempt to rein in 
Federal spending and hold us to our honest limits for now. And if the 
best case scenario presents itself down the road, all the better.
  I urge my colleagues to support this motion, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.

                              {time}  2220

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Well, here we are in the dark of the night, voting on what is really, 
for the most part meaningless, which is a motion to instruct conferees, 
which is nonbinding. But in this case, since this might indicate the 
intent of the majority, should this motion prevail, this is a very 
significant discussion of the future of our country.
  Now, the gentleman talked about runaway spending, and we have some 
substantial agreement there. I was the lead Democratic sponsor on a 
balanced budget amendment which would force us to agree on ways to move 
toward fiscal responsibility, including both revenues, which that side 
denies, and expenditures.
  But when we look at expenditures, we need to discriminate between 
consumption and investment. Investment in transportation and 
infrastructure, giving the United States of America a 21st century, 
competitive infrastructure system to compete with the rest of the 
world.
  Our competitor nations get it. China's spending almost 10 percent of 
their gross domestic product on transportation investment so they can 
be more competitive, get their goods to market more quickly, more 
efficiently, more fuel efficiently, move their people more efficiently.
  India, 5 percent. Brazil, 6 percent. United States of America, a 
little bit less than 1 percent--and the gentleman's amendment would cut 
it to zero for the next year. Yes, zero.
  Now, how does that happen?
  Well, the fact is that as we incur obligations to spend money on 
infrastructure, there's a tail, there's a lag. We only reimburse the 
States once the projects are finished. And it happens that, over the 
next year, the past obligations to which the Federal Government has 
committed, would equal the amount of money to which the gentleman would 
limit us, which would

[[Page 8706]]

mean no new investment in transportation and infrastructure in this 
country, despite the fact we have 150,000 bridges in the Federal system 
that are at the point of collapse or need substantial rehabilitation.
  We have 40 percent of the miles on the national highway system that 
don't just need an overlay; they need to be dug up. They need to be 
totally rebuilt. And a $70 billion backlog on our transit system. 
That's the 19th and 20th century system, let alone a 21st century 
transit them.
  And guess what? If we make these investments with the ``Buy America'' 
requirements, which many on that side of the aisle are opposed to, we 
would put millions to work in this country. So we are, on this side, 
fighting for more investment. There are many on that side fighting for 
reduced investment. But this motion would actually propose zero, zero 
investment for the next year in transportation and infrastructure in 
America, with the deteriorating system. And that's somehow fiscally 
prudent.
  The gentleman talked about the Chamber of Commerce. Kind of 
interesting because actually I have a letter dated June 5, pretty 
recent, from the Chamber of Commerce:
  Passing transportation reauthorization legislation is a concrete step 
Congress and the administration can take right now to support job, 
economic productivity without adding to the deficit. The Chamber 
strongly opposes the Broun amendment, the motion to instruct conferees, 
and urges you to vote against this effort to slash funding for 
highways, transit, and safety programs. The Chamber may consider 
including votes on or in relation to this Broun amendment to instruct 
in our annual how they voted score card.
  That's good. I might end up at 5 percent or 10 percent because I am 
going to oppose it. A lot of time I'm kind of zero with the Chamber. So 
that's good. They get it.
  There's a long list of businesses and others that are opposed to this 
amendment. They understand for America to compete in the modern 21st 
century world we need an up-to-date transportation system. We don't 
have it, and the 20th century system we have, the legacy of Dwight 
David Eisenhower, a Republican President, is falling apart.
  At the levels the gentleman would mandate with this motion to 
instruct, according to the Congressional Budget Office, there would be 
zero new investment in the coming year. That is hundreds of thousands 
of jobs lost, opportunities lost.
  Now, I understand that on their side of the aisle they're having a 
very robust debate--I didn't bring my poster tonight--about the issue 
of devolution. And devolution is a theory that the Federal Government 
shouldn't be involved in national transportation policy. It should be 
delegated to the 50 States, and they should be responsible for paying 
for it.
  Well, guess what? We had that system until 1956. Dwight David 
Eisenhower and the surface transportation legacy he gave us with the 
national highway system. And I have a great poster--I wish I'd brought 
it--which is a great photo from the air of the new, brand new, spanking 
new, beautiful new Kansas Turnpike, 1956. And guess what?
  It ends kind of abruptly, and you go, wow, what's that line? Why does 
it end there?
  Well, that was a farmer's field in Oklahoma, because Oklahoma said, 
well, we'll build our section too. We'll have a new, coordinated thing. 
But they said, well, we don't have the money, and they couldn't do it. 
And it wasn't done until the Eisenhower bill was adopted and we had a 
national investment in a national transportation highway system.
  They want to go back to the good old days, a 50-State system funded 
by the 50 States that's disconnected. So freight comes into L.A., which 
is going to all of the Western United States, well, even some of it 
further to the east, maybe, probably not all the way to Georgia, who 
knows. Some of it. And well, I guess California would have to pay for 
moving all the freight for the rest of the country. Well, maybe they're 
not going to do that, and maybe the other States aren't going to do 
that under this kind of new, bizarre theory of devolution.
  We need a 21st century, efficient, competitive, world-class national 
transportation system. The bill that the Senate passed won't get us 
there. I would vote for it. Won't get us there.
  The bill that was proposed on the Republican side of the aisle, which 
they couldn't even get out of conference, would move us backwards. This 
bill would take us back to essentially, not quite even Third World 
status because Third World countries are investing more of their GDP in 
transportation and infrastructure than us. It would be Fourth World, 
formerly First World, vaulting over everybody else saying, hey, we're 
just going to let it fall apart. We're going to leave it up to the 50 
States, and maybe they can get it together for a national system. Maybe 
they can't. This is nuts.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. To begin with, I yield myself as much time as I 
may consume, and then I'll yield to my good friend, Mo Brooks from 
Alabama.
  But prior to yielding to Mr. Brooks, I want to say that my good 
friend, who I have utmost admiration and good feelings towards 
personally, my friend from Oregon is just factually incorrect. If this 
motion to instruct is indeed put into the conference report that, 
hopefully, they will get out, there will continue to be new investment 
in our infrastructure. The difference will be that we just won't create 
any more debt.
  And the argument I got from my colleague on the other side just shows 
the very drastic difference in philosophy between my Democratic 
colleagues and me and many on our side, and that's that it seems to me 
that the philosophy of the Democratic party is that only government 
creates jobs.
  The government doesn't make any money. They just take money from 
those who are creating jobs and spend it on whatever government decides 
that they want to spend it on. We spent a tremendous amount of money, 
which is going to wind up being over $1 trillion in a stimulus package 
that our President gave us. And where are the jobs? He created some 
temporary jobs. Created even temporary infrastructure jobs, but our 
economy is no better.
  The American people are asking, where are the jobs? Where's the 
stronger economy?
  There is none. And there is none because the philosophy of my 
Democratic colleagues just simply does not work. Socialism has never 
worked under any socialist particular regime in the history of this 
Nation, and it's not going to work under the socialistic regime of 
Barack Obama and my Democratic colleagues.
  I believe in transportation. It's one of the few truly constitutional 
functions of the Federal Government under the original intent. In our 
Founding Fathers' time they called it a postal road system.

                              {time}  2230

  But what I am against is creating more debt for my two grandchildren, 
who are 6 and 7. Their names are Tillman and Cile Surratt, and they 
live in Oconee County, Georgia. What we are doing here in this body and 
what we've been doing in the 5 years I've been here is creating more 
debt that they and their children and their grandchildren are going to 
have to pay. They're going to live at a lower standard than we do 
today.
  It's because of this philosophy of Big Government spending; it's 
because of a philosophy of government knows best for America; and it's 
a philosophy of government is going to take away from those who are 
producing and creating jobs and give it to government bureaucrats to 
try to tell us how to run our lives.
  It has to stop. America is broke, and we have to stop this deficit 
spending. Where are the jobs?
  We can create some part-time jobs. I'd like to see us have a 
transportation bill. I'd like to see us have a 10-year transportation 
bill based on highway trust fund spending--nothing else--and not going 
into debt any further. So the

[[Page 8707]]

philosophy of my good friend from Oregon and his colleagues on the 
Democratic side is a philosophy of economic failure as a Nation, and 
we've got to stop it.
  I would now like to yield 10 minutes to my good friend from Alabama 
(Mr. Brooks).
  Mr. BROOKS. I support Representative Broun's motion to instruct. Let 
me explain why.
  For six decades, America has been the greatest Nation in history. We 
are blessed with a standard of living envied by the world, a military 
unmatched in history, freedoms that others can only dream of.
  Why is America great? Because Americans before us sacrificed so that 
their children, their grandchildren, their country would enjoy a better 
future.
  Our Founding Fathers exemplified America's spirit when they stated in 
the Declaration of Independence:

       And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm 
     reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually 
     pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred 
     honor.

  In contrast, today's Washington abandons America's foundational 
principles. Today's Washington supports unsustainable spending binges 
that abandon our children and grandchildren and America's future.
  Perhaps a refresher is needed to emphasize America's financial 
plight.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first direct your attention to this deficit 
chart. As the chart reflects, America suffers from three consecutive, 
record-breaking, and unsustainable trillion-dollar deficits, and we are 
in the midst of a fourth trillion-dollar deficit that is projected for 
this year.
  Think about that for a moment.
  In fiscal year 2011, Washington borrowed 36 cents for every dollar it 
spent. No household or business could survive borrowing 36 cents for it 
to operate. Similarly, no nation can survive that either. As a result, 
America blew through the $15 trillion accumulated debt mark in November 
of last year. This year, America is going to blow through the $16 
trillion debt mark.
  Mr. Speaker, the next chart reflects spending for FY 2010 and FY 
2011. In FY 2010, the cost of America's debt service was $196 billion. 
In FY 2011, the cost of America's debt service was $221 billion. 
They're relatively small slices of those pies. However, in just 1 year, 
the cost to American taxpayers to service America's debt increased by 
$25 billion.
  To put that into perspective, $25 billion is more than NASA's entire 
budget--and this is at record low interest rates. If America's 
creditors become as insecure as the creditors of Greece, Spain, Italy, 
and any number of other nations and if interest rates go up 
accordingly, America's debt service would jump to the $800 billion-a-
year range, making debt service more costly than our entire budget for 
national defense, our entire budget for Social Security, or our entire 
budget for Medicare. Consequently, if we had this small slice of the 
pie increase to $800 billion a year, every other service provided by 
the Federal Government would have to shrink.
  So that we are clear, reckless, out-of-control spending is the cause 
of America's deficits.
  In fiscal year 2007, when Nancy Pelosi became House Speaker and when 
Harry Reid became the Senate Majority Leader, America spent $2.7 
trillion. In FY 2011, America spent $3.6 trillion. In just 4 years, 
Federal Government spending went up $900 billion--a 33 percent 
increase. Simply stated, there is no end in sight to Washington's 
reckless and irresponsible spending.
  Mr. Speaker, if Washington does not gain wisdom and backbone, if 
Washington does not change its reckless spending habit, then there will 
be an American insolvency and bankruptcy. For emphasis, the question is 
not ``if.'' The questions are ``when?'' and ``how much damage will be 
done to our Nation from that insolvency and bankruptcy?'' President 
Obama's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, gave 
insight when he stated, ``I think the biggest threat we have to our 
national security is our debt.''
  And he is right. Already, America's out-of-control spending threatens 
to force the firing of 700,000 national defense personnel starting in a 
mere 7 months, on January 1 of 2013. Let me emphasize that: threatened 
with 700,000 lost jobs. No enemy has ever undermined America's national 
defense so badly.
  But it does not end with the decimation of America's national 
defense, which may leave America at the mercy of our enemies abroad. 
America's insolvency and bankruptcy risk the elimination of Social 
Security and Medicare, thereby breaching our obligations to our elderly 
and leaving them impoverished and without medical care.
  To summarize the danger to America, think back to the Great 
Depression in the 1930s and imagine how bad it would have been if then 
the Federal Government had been insolvent. As you do this, remember the 
result of the Great Depression--an ensuing war that killed tens of 
millions of men, women, and children worldwide.
  All of this brings me to Paul Broun's motion to instruct. The 
transportation bill is a microcosm of what threatens America. We enjoy, 
roughly, $37 billion in expected highway revenue, yet some in 
Washington seek to spend, roughly, $51 billion. That's $14 billion a 
year that we don't have.
  Now, there are solutions to this budget gap that I could support. We 
could cut $14 billion in foreign aid and spend it on American roads, 
but my colleagues across the aisle oppose that. We could cut welfare 
and stop paying $14 billion a year to people to not work and instead 
pay $14 billion a year to people to work on buildings and bridges, but 
my colleagues across the aisle oppose that. There are plenty of 
solutions out there, but simply borrowing another $14 billion a year we 
don't have is not one of them.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot in good conscience support a transportation 
bill that spends, roughly, $14 billion we don't have, thereby 
accelerating America on its path to insolvency and bankruptcy.
  In that vein, I thank Congressman Paul Broun for filing his motion to 
instruct and for displaying the leadership America so sorely needs. 
Congressman Broun is a man of principle. He has the intellect to 
understand the economic disaster that awaits America if Washington does 
not live within its means. More importantly, Mr. Broun has the backbone 
to do something about it. It is an honor to stand with Congressman 
Broun and to support his motion to instruct.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate and I certainly do respect the gentleman from Georgia, 
and he is a gentleman, but let's get a few things straight here.
  We're not talking about government jobs. We're talking about private 
sector jobs. The Federal Government does not build bridges. The Federal 
Government does not restore the condition of our highways. The Federal 
Government does not build transit vehicles or invest in transit 
systems. What the Federal Government does is to invest with strong 
``buy America'' provisions to the best low-cost bidders to make and 
restore these products to make America more competitive.

                              {time}  2240

  One of the things that underlays our system, the most basic thing--I 
mean, George Washington, he started to build canals; Abraham Lincoln, 
the transcontinental railway; Dwight David Eisenhower, the national 
highway system, which is now falling apart; and Ronald Reagan put 
transit into the highway trust fund, because we shouldn't neglect our 
urban areas and the needs of those people.
  The effect of the Broun amendment would be zero new Federal 
expenditures beginning October 1 next year on transit highways and 
other investments in transportation in this country. You can't get 
around that. That's what they're proposing. Because we have past 
obligations and the way they've written, this would limit us to only 
pay for past obligations, not any new obligations.
  They rattled on and prattled on a bit about the Obama stimulus. I 
voted

[[Page 8708]]

against it. Why did I vote against it? Because 7 percent was 
transportation investment and 40 percent was tax cuts. And guess what? 
Those damn tax cuts didn't put anybody back to work, and they won't put 
anybody back to work in the future. That's all you guys want, is tax 
cuts. We need investment in our country. We need investment in moving 
people and goods. We need to compete with the world, and you don't want 
to do it. That's nuts.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak against this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I've been through this movie before as a member of the 
Budget Committee. This is not new ground. When it was first unveiled 
before us and I looked at the transportation provisions, I asked the 
Republican staff to pin down exactly the amount of money that is 
available. This essentially is what the Republican budget is, and it 
was not enough to meet the current obligations. It meant that there 
would be no new programming. And now we're bringing it to the floor 
with instructions to make sure that this is what the conference 
committee enacts.
  Let us be clear. What my friend and colleague from Oregon pointed out 
is that this is an opportunity for us to empower the private sector. 
Republicans and Democrats alike have been visited time and time and 
time again--first of all, you could hear from people in your district 
that the Recovery Act kept businesses afloat, kept people working, made 
a huge difference in every State in the union. Even though I agree with 
my colleague from Oregon that it wasn't enough infrastructure, but the 
contractors, electrical contractors, unions, and pavers were thankful 
for it to help many of them not go out of business.
  The list of people who oppose this amendment are not opposing it 
because our proposal is socialism. To the contrary. The Amalgamated 
Transit Union, the American Coal Ash Association, the American Concrete 
Pavement Association, the American General Contractors, the Laborers' 
International, the Portland Cement Association, the Carpenters, and the 
U.S. Chamber oppose this because it would add to the depression that we 
have in the construction cycle in the United States right now. We would 
not be able to keep pace, and it would result in hundreds of thousands 
of jobs being lost.
  We had a proposal that passed the Senate with 74 votes--half the 
Republicans--that would enable us to have two construction cycles. The 
Republicans, who could not get the votes to even have the courage to 
bring their proposal to the floor--it fell apart, having been brought 
to the Transportation Committee. And I am a proud alumni member of that 
committee. For the first time in history, it was a blatantly partisan 
bill that had never even had a hearing. They somehow got it out of 
committee, and they got it out of our Ways and Means Committee, but the 
support within the Republican Party completely fell apart before it 
came to the floor. They were afraid to have it voted on because it 
would have been defeated because it was bad for America. I had a list 
of 600 groups when I was arguing against it in our Ways and Means 
Committee that thought it was terrible policy.
  We requested the Republican leadership to at least allow the Senate 
bill to be voted on, and they were afraid to do that. So we're in 
conference now merely because the Republicans just had a short-term 
extension, unwilling to allow this body--and I know there would be a 
number of my Republican friends who would have joined with us. Not a 
majority of Republicans, but enough that it would have passed 
comfortably, and we wouldn't be caught in this Never Never Land.
  My good friend from Georgia is concerned that his two grandchildren 
will be facing debt. Well, the Republican budget would force us to 
increase the debt ceiling. It will force us to borrow in order to have 
more unfunded tax cuts, even while it undercuts investment in 
infrastructure. This was admitted by the Republican chair of the 
committee in our budget hearing yesterday. He admits that it's not 
going to balance any time in the foreseeable future, and that it will 
require the increase in the debt ceiling.
  But there's a very different philosophy. It has nothing to do with 
socialism. My Lord, I thought that the John Birch claim that Dwight 
Eisenhower was a Communist or a socialist was discredited. The 
partnership we've had with the highway trust fund and investing in 
America's future is something that is the opposite of socialism. It is 
a public-private partnership that has involved people at all levels in 
government in things that made a difference.
  I had a meeting today with 80 stakeholders primarily from the private 
sector, including environmentalists and unions and businesses and trade 
associations, who are apoplectic over the prospect that this House 
would go on record to shut down all new investment for the next year 
and further undercut the opportunity of moving a bipartisan Senate bill 
to at least give us two construction cycles and move forward.
  I agree that we need to be concerned about a debt burden, and 
independent analysis of why we've had an exploding debt includes 
unfunded tax cuts. Remember, Mr. DeFazio and I served here when the big 
fear was that we were going to pay off all government debt. What would 
the insurance companies do? What would the pension plans do if there 
wasn't government debt to invest in? This is part of the rationale for 
the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2002, because we were looking at a $5.3 
trillion surplus.
  Well, they solved that problem. They solved it with tax cuts, 
primarily for people who need them the least. Yet, we have serious 
problems with increasing health care costs, and now they are trying to 
dismantle the Affordable Care Act, which would actually, over 20 years, 
start reining those costs in. They had not one, but two unfunded wars, 
which my colleague and I from Oregon opposed. There is the collapse of 
the economy.
  It is interesting that Mr. Romney's adviser, when there was criticism 
of the Romney record in Massachusetts for debt and problems of job 
loss, said:
  Well, you know, part of that is that's not really a good criterion, 
because a lot of those jobs were lost in Governor Romney's first year 
in office, and you shouldn't count those.

                              {time}  2250

  There is a certain merit to that, but if you use the Romney standard 
of not being accountable for the first year as Governor of 
Massachusetts, the problems with employment and the problems with the 
debt look much, much different, because this President inherited one of 
the worst situations in American history.
  It is important that we focus on where we need to go forward. We 
actually had a much higher percentage of the gross domestic product in 
public debt immediately after World War II. It's much higher than the 
debt burden today.
  How was that solved? Was it solved by cutting taxes to zero? No. They 
had much higher tax rates for 20 years until the Kennedy-Johnson tax 
cuts. They invested in America, as my friend from Oregon pointed out. 
They invested in education for returning veterans, they invested in the 
highway, the transcontinental highway fund, they invested in America's 
future.
  That's what we should be doing now. The absolute worst thing, the 
worst thing would be to shut down investment this next year in 
transportation and infrastructure.
  That's why companies from A to Z oppose this motion to instruct. I 
hope, instead, we pass the Senate bill, get 2 years of construction 
cycle, reject this wrong-headed approach, and get on with the business 
of rebuilding and renewing America.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. I would point out that the 
Senate, the proposed Senate bill, which we could pass tonight, if we 
call people back, or tomorrow, or next week if we stayed in town to 
work, but we have breaks every other week now--39 legislative days 
until the election. America

[[Page 8709]]

doesn't have any problems. We don't need to be here. Right? Come on.
  But the bottom line is the Senate bill would not create a penny of 
new debt and would fund current levels of investment, which are not 
what we need; but we could get by with that for 2 years until we figure 
out a way to make more robust investments.
  The gentleman would reduce that investment to zero, zero, not 
exaggeration. That's the Congressional Budget Office--zero. No Federal 
spending for transit, no Federal spending for highways next year. 
That's hundreds of thousands, millions, probably a million jobs, 
probably 1.6 million, we would sacrifice on the altar of what? Again, 
back to the principle, investment consumption.
  Certainly you can understand that on your side of the aisle. It's 
been a Republican tradition to invest in America, to invest in a more 
efficient transportation system for America, to make us more 
competitive in the world, to move our people and our goods more 
efficiently, to avoid importing foreign fuel and all the other things 
we have to do with an inefficient system. This would defy all that and 
say, no, United States of America, we're not going to invest in our 
national transportation system.
  We're going to devolve that to the 50 States. We're going to go back 
to 1956 when one State decides to make an investment and the other 
State doesn't and the road ends at the border. I can't understand what 
this is all about.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time 
remains on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 10 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Oregon has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to say my friends from 
Oregon are just factually incorrect. This would not cut out all new 
spending, and they are using scare tactics to promote their Big 
Government agenda.
  I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from South 
Carolina, Jeff Duncan.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I want to thank my friend from Georgia 
for yielding to me tonight.
  I think our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are in denial 
about deficits and debt. What it means--I put the debt clock right here 
in front for everyone to see, but if you can't see it, America is 
$15.74 trillion in debt.
  In fact, we've had over $30 million added to the Nation's debt just 
since we have been talking this evening and the clock's running right 
now; $50,000 per American citizen in this country is your share of the 
Nation's debt.
  You know, back in July of 2010, my wife and I, we took our boys, it 
was after a campaign, and we went out across the Nation. In 17 days we 
went through 19 States, and we visited no less than 11 national parks. 
Now, this was after the $1.2 trillion stimulus package passed by 
President Obama in the Democrat-controlled Congress.
  But what did I see as I drove through the 19 States of this country's 
heartland? Where did I see the construction projects on the road, the 
$1.2 trillion in deficit spending to get the jobs we never got?
  I saw the construction happening, road construction happening on 
roads leading into national parks. I didn't see it on the interstate 
highways that would allow transportation of commerce around this land. 
I saw it in the national parks.
  We're $15.74 trillion in debt, and all the gentleman is asking to do 
is let's live within our means. Let's collect the highway tax, and 
let's just spend that. Let's not continue to perpetuate deficit 
spending. But, you know, we throw words around like ``millions'' and 
``billions'' and ``trillions'' around this Nation, and we lose track of 
what a trillion is.
  But let me just tell you, if we decided to get serious about paying 
back our Nation's creditors, and we did it at the rate of $20 million a 
day, and we did that every day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year--and, 
ladies and gentlemen, listen up--if we did that every day of the year, 
from the time Jesus Christ was born until now, we have only paid back 
$14.9 trillion of our debt, less than what we owe, at the rate of $20 
million a day, for 746,000 days that it's been.
  Now it's time to get serious about what we're doing in this country 
with regard to revenue and with regard to deficit spending. This the 
fourth year in a row we will be in excess of a trillion dollars, 
spending a trillion dollars more than we're bringing in as a Nation. 
All we're doing on the Republican side is saying, you know what, it's 
time America lives within its means. It's time we have a balanced 
budget.
  We need a balanced budget to the Nation's Constitution to require 
this body, which shows no fiscal restraint, require this body to live 
within its means just like we have to do at home in our family budgets 
and our small business budgets. It's time to get serious in this 
country about our Nation's debt and about what our deficit spending 
means.
  Quit spending money for jobs we never got from the Obama stimulus 
package.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The language limits the funding out of the highway trust fund, 
including the mass transit account for Federal aid highway and transit 
programs, to amounts that do not exceed $37.5 billion, about a third of 
the cost of the continuing war in Afghanistan, which I would like to 
bring to a close. But the existing obligations of the Federal 
Government for past construction, we reimburse States once the project 
is done, transit project, highway project, bridge project, done, we 
reimburse them. We don't pay them in advance. Our current obligations 
for the next year are $38.8 billion.
  So, if we limit the outlays to $37.5 billion, and we owe $38.8 
billion to the States when they deliver their completed contracts in 
the coming year, that means we would have negative spending on Federal 
investments in transportation and infrastructure.
  While competitive nations around the world are investing dramatically 
to more efficiently move goods and people, we would spend less than 
zero.
  I don't know how we spend less than zero, but that's what this 
amendment would do. You keep prattling on about the Obama stimulus. I 
voted against it. I was one of the few Democrats who did. I voted 
against it not because of investment in infrastructure, but because it 
didn't invest in infrastructure. The President talked about it. Larry 
Summers hated infrastructure.

                              {time}  2300

  Timmy Geithner hates infrastructure. Old-school Jason Furman, all his 
advisers, they hate it. Seven percent of the money we borrowed was 
invested in infrastructure. Seven percent of that $800-some billion 
dollars. And guess what? I can justify that borrowing because I can say 
to my kids and my grandkids, We built that bridge, we built that 
transit system, we built that highway, and you're still using it, and 
it made America more competitive.
  But over 40 percent was tax cuts. He adopted the Republican approach. 
How many jobs did the tax cuts create? Nada, zero, none. You guys want 
to do more tax cuts, and you don't want to do any investment. That's 
what this would lead us to. You want to continue the Bush tax cuts--all 
of them--and you want to invest less than zero in Federal 
infrastructure.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I am not sure where my friend gets his 
mathematics from, but it's certainly not in reality.
  I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I thank the 
gentleman for offering his motion. We've heard all kinds of emotional 
stuff and language here. But let's just cut to the chase. This doesn't 
cut anything. It doesn't slash anything. This is a motion to instruct 
conferees in the transportation bill, the conferees on that 
legislation, to limit spending in the transportation legislation to the 
amount of money that's in the highway trust fund. It's as simple as 
that. Here's the money that came in. All you can do is spend what you 
have.

[[Page 8710]]

  Imagine that concept. Imagine government actually just following that 
simple concept. Here's what came in. That's all you can spend. If we'd 
been doing that, we wouldn't have this debt that Mr. Duncan so 
eloquently spoke about. We wouldn't have the problems we see. You can 
say all the things you want, but it is that simple. This is apple pie, 
this is baseball. This is as plain as it gets. This is what every 
family has to do. This is what every small business has to do. This is 
what every township has to do. This is what every village has to do, 
every county has to do, every city has to do, every State has to do. 
The only entity that doesn't have to do this is, Oh, by the way, that 
entity that happens to have a $16 trillion national debt.
  This is as simple as it gets. What you take in is all you can spend. 
You can't do what the politicians love to do: borrow from someone else. 
Borrow from some other program, which means you have to sell bonds to 
run up the debt. You can't do what politicians love to do: spend more 
than you have. You can only spend what you have.
  And yet the other side says, This is terrible. This will ruin 
everything. This will make us Third World status. I'll tell you what 
will make us Third World status is a debt larger than our GDP. That's 
where Greece is. That's where they are. That's what will make us Third 
World status.
  This is as simple and as plain as it can get, and I appreciate the 
courage of the gentleman to bring the motion forward to have this 
debate. This is a debate that we need to have in this country. If we 
can't even limit spending in this program to what comes in from the 
dedicated revenue, if we can't even do that, how are we ever going to 
cut spending elsewhere to get a handle on our deficit and our debt 
problem, if we can't even do this?
  The American people get this. And you can try to confuse them with 
all the fancy language you've heard from the gentleman from Oregon--you 
can try to--but the American people get it.
  I want to commend the gentleman for offering his motion, and I plan 
on supporting it tomorrow when we have a vote.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. May I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Again, we're failing to discriminate between investment and 
consumption. The Republicans were all for consumptive tax cuts, i.e., 
give people the money, they'll spend it on consumer goods, that will 
somehow put people back to work, as opposed to investing in the future 
of our country. That's what I'm talking about here.
  It's interesting that they're on the wrong side from the Chamber of 
Commerce, the Association of General Contractors, and other groups that 
are incredibly generous to them during the campaign season who think 
they're very wrongheaded with this amendment.
  This isn't fancy language. I have the statistics from the Department 
of Transportation. Over the next year, the Federal Government is 
legally obligated for past construction projects authorized under law 
to pay $38.8 billion to the States. This amendment would say we can 
spend no more than $37.5 billion in the coming year. That means we 
cannot even meet our legal obligations for past construction which will 
be completed by October 1. That means an end to all Federal investment 
in transportation in this country on October 1 for the next year.
  It's not fancy language. It's a fact. It comes from the Congressional 
Budget Office, which the Republicans control, and the Department of 
Transportation, which the Obama administration controls. It's pretty 
much the consensus in the business community, the Chamber of Commerce, 
the Association of General Contractors, and everybody else. This would 
mean an end to investment for 1 year. That's a minimum of 1.6 million 
jobs lost. It's an incredible lost opportunity for the future of our 
kids and grandkids.
  You need to understand the difference between--you're supposedly the 
party of business. It's like people borrow money when they're in 
business if they have a good investment to make, if they can make their 
company more competitive. We can make our country more competitive if 
we invest in our transportation infrastructure. If we neglect it and 
people have to detour around the 150,000 bridges that are weight-
limited and about to collapse like the one in Minnesota, if they have 
to detour around the 40 percent of the deteriorated national highway 
system, if people can't get to work or get killed like they did here in 
Washington, D.C., on a deficient mass transit system because we have a 
$70 billion backlog, and all of these investments, when made by the 
private sector, for the private sector, and for the people of America, 
are made in America. And you would defer instead to more tax cuts.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have the right to close, and I 
am going to reserve the balance of my time until the time to close.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. How much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Again, I wish this wasn't the dark of the night because 
this is a debate America should and would like to have. I'll reiterate: 
the United States Chamber of Commerce, with whom I frequently disagree, 
strongly opposes the Broun motion. We have a long list of groups, 
private sector business groups, who oppose this motion because this is 
not about government jobs. It's about private sector jobs. This is not 
about government gone wild.
  I wish it had been different. I wish that the stimulus had been half 
as large and 100 percent invested in the infrastructure of this 
country. We would have put millions more people back to work, and we 
would be on the road to recovery today. But instead, in deference to 
three Senate Republicans, the President, who wanted to look bipartisan, 
gave in to six times as much money for tax cuts as investment in 
infrastructure. And you want to blame infrastructure for the debt and 
the deficit, or the Obama failed stimulus? No, guys, no. It's your 
policies. We implemented them. And they don't work. We need to invest 
in the underpinnings of the country.
  When I was first elected to office, I served with a very, very 
conservative Republican, a guy named Bill Rogers on the Lane County 
Commission, and he would always say, Government's for two things. I'd 
say, What's that, Bill? He'd say, Roads and rope. Roads and rope. That 
is public safety and infrastructure.
  And there has been bipartisan agreement since George Washington that 
the Federal Government has an obligation to more efficiently move goods 
and people in this country. That's a long time before the incredibly 
competitive 21st century and what we're dealing with today with our 
huge trade deficits and everything else. That was George Washington.
  Abraham Lincoln, a Republic President: Build the transcontinental 
railway. Borrowed money to do it, by God. What do you know? And then, 
Dwight David Eisenhower, the National Highway System, National Defense 
Highway System. And Ronald Reagan: We need to invest in transit in our 
cities.

                              {time}  2310

  And you would turn back the clock to pre-George Washington and say 
the 50 States--we didn't have States then, but, you know, you guys are 
going to at least allow us to keep federalism and that intact. But 
``they should create somehow a Federal system. They should coordinate. 
They should raise the money. This is not an obligation of the Federal 
Government.''
  This is not imaginary. This is not play. It's not ideology. It's 
simple hard numbers and facts. The number you would allow for the next 
year is deficient to the previous obligations.
  Now, I know you guys took us--and there are a number of you on that 
side who say, hey, it doesn't matter if the Government of the United 
States of

[[Page 8711]]

America defaults. I think it does. I've been good for my debts. I think 
our country has got to be good for our debts. And I think we would be 
in a disaster if we weren't.
  So you can say that. Oh, yeah, you know, it's meaningless. It's 
facts.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. This is reality. Invest in America. Why do you hate this 
country so much?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I was just charged by this 
gentleman for hating America, and I challenge those words, and I ask 
that his words be taken down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will be seated, and the Clerk 
will report the words.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's demand is withdrawn.
  The gentleman is recognized for the remaining 3 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for one 
second.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman for just one second.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, give me four, maybe.
  I did not mean to direct the remark to you. It was a generic 
statement out of concern.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Well, the gentleman did obviously direct 
remarks towards me. He pointed at me when he said: ``Why do you hate 
America so much?''
  I love my country. I'm a U.S. marine. I'm trying to save my country 
from financial collapse. And that's what this is all about: stop 
spending money that we don't have.
  We've got to finish the projects that we've already started, those 
that have already been approved and funded, before we start dipping 
into the general fund. It's estimated that we'll have a shortfall of $8 
billion to $9 billion if this motion to instruct is not put in place.
  We cannot afford the status quo. Their argument is to continue 
spending money, continue down a road that is going to cause a financial 
collapse of this Nation, in my opinion.

                              {time}  2330

  We need to create jobs. We need to get this country going 
economically. The policies of this administration have not worked. 
Policies that were put forward while Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of this 
House, with the stimulus bill and other big spending bills just have 
been essentially abject failures.
  We cannot continue spending money that we don't have, and that's the 
reason I brought this motion forward, a motion to instruct the 
conferees to spend--continue transportation funding, continue building 
our transportation infrastructure, which I think is absolutely critical 
for economic development. But creating more debt is not the answer.
  I resent being accused of hating America, and it angers me when I'm 
accused, personally accused by somebody that I thought was a friend. 
And I'm going to try very hard not to take this personally. I will not 
carry a grudge because I know, from my heart, we can disagree on 
issues, and I don't take it personally. But when he pointed at me and 
accused me of hating America, that's the reason I asked for his words 
to be taken down.
  And what I ask my colleagues in this House to do is look in their 
hearts, because we absolutely have to change the way this House, this 
Congress, this government is doing business. We cannot continue 
spending ourselves to oblivion, and that's the way we're headed.
  We need to create jobs. We need to create a strong economy. This has 
not been about tax increases or tax decreases, as has been accused 
tonight. This is about spending money that we have, and no more.
  I encourage my colleagues to please vote for this motion to instruct, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to the 
Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 4348 offered by the gentleman from 
Georgia, Mr. Broun. The draconian cuts directed by this motion would 
cripple the Nation's infrastructure and leave hundreds of thousands of 
people unemployed.
  The language of the gentleman's motion is confusing at best. The 
exact amount suggested to be cut differs due to interpretation of the 
word ``funding.'' By limiting the Highway Trust Fund's expenditures in 
FY 2013 to $37.5 billion, the gentleman's motion would essentially 
bankrupt the Fund because $37.5 billion is less than the amount needed 
to reimburse State and public transit agencies for obligations incurred 
in prior fiscal years.
  The Federal Government already owes $38.8 billion for projects that 
were implemented in the previous fiscal year, or are currently under 
construction. If we do not authorize the funds necessary to pay these 
debts, the government will be in default.
  Spending cuts of this magnitude would cut more than 1.6 million jobs 
in a field with more than 2.2 million people already out of work. At 
the beginning of the spring and summer construction season the 
unemployment rate in the industry was at 14.2%, and in May alone jobs 
fell by 28,000. It would be foolish to vote for a motion that will have 
the effect of putting more Americans out of work. That would be the 
result if the Broun Motion were adopted.
  The motion by the gentleman from Georgia ignores the long-term 
underinvestment in our nation's surface transportation. Investments in 
transportation support economic growth, increase productivity and 
enhance America's competitiveness in the global economy.
  A strong national infrastructure is what will bring this country back 
from the recession we are currently fighting through. The Highway 
Transit Fund is essential for not only providing a safe transportation 
network, but creating millions of jobs for hardworking Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleagues and I are working during 
a time of economic constraints, and I understand that we must make 
spending cuts across the board in order to control the debt we have 
accumulated.
  However, this motion is an irresponsible move, and if implemented 
would have disastrous consequences. The Highway Trust Fund would no 
longer have the ability to carry out highway, highway safety and public 
transit projects or activities. This would have long lasting negative 
effects on our nation's infrastructure and economy.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion is bordering on absurd. I cannot believe 
that a member of congress means to drive our nation into default, and 
cripple our infrastructure in the process. I stand before you today to 
ask my colleagues, regardless of their political ideology, to ignore 
the motion put before you. This is what is best for our nation, and our 
economy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________