[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9616-9623]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees on 
H.R. 4348.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Shuster) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous materials on my motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Tomorrow will mark, as I said a little earlier, 100 days since the 
United States Senate approved its bipartisan compromise highway bill in 
the United States Senate. There were 74 Senators who voted for that. 
Essentially half of the Republican Conference in the United States 
Senate voted for that bill.
  There has been a bill in the House committee. That bill has 
languished in the House committee for many, many months--in fact, for 
about 4 months after the Speaker said he wanted to bring it to the 
floor. It has not come to the floor, apparently, because the Republican 
Party is divided on that bill, and they don't have the votes for that 
bill.

                              {time}  1340

  That measure passed the Senate 74-22, and it would have been, by the 
way, 75-22 had Frank Lautenberg been there. He made that statement on 
the floor. That's three-quarters of the Senate, with the support of 22 
Senate Republicans.
  Americans are wishing that we would come together, reason together, 
and act together to give certainty to them, to the economy, and to 
their country. Unfortunately, the House bill that was passed was 
effectively a bill simply to go to conference. I know my friend--and he 
is my friend--Mr. Shuster from Pennsylvania will say that in the 
article that was written, that it was simply ``that House bill'' to 
which he was referring. I take him at his word that he was referring to 
that. But very frankly, others have said that there were items in the 
bill in committee that were critically important to them that ought to 
be in the conference committee report, and obviously the Senate would 
not agree to those.
  This bill, to which I refer and which this motion to instruct refers, 
is supported by chambers of commerce in cities and counties across this 
Nation.
  This is truly a bipartisan piece of legislation in the great 
tradition of transportation bills passed since the Eisenhower era. The 
gentleman who is managing the time on the Republican side, his father 
was a great proponent of infrastructure investment, a great leader in 
this Congress on infrastructure, and, in fact, participated--every time 
that I think he brought a bill out as ranking member, it was passed in 
a bipartisan fashion. Unfortunately, we haven't gotten to that point at 
this point of time.
  Instead of taking up that bill, the Senate bill, and allowing us to 
have a

[[Page 9617]]

vote on it here in the House--in my opinion, if the Republican 
leadership let its Members vote free of influence by the leadership, 
that bill would have the majority of votes on this House floor. Speaker 
Boehner has said he wants this House to work its will. In my point of 
view, in my estimation, that bill has a majority support on the floor 
of this House. It would have, I think, every Democratic vote, just as 
the Export-Import Bank had every vote on our side of the aisle. That's 
why it passed overwhelmingly, not withstanding Republican opposition.
  The caucus on the other side of the aisle, in my opinion, remains 
divided over how to proceed. House Republicans have, once again, turned 
an opportunity to invest in job creation into a partisan exercise in 
saying ``no'' to any legislation that might strengthen our recovery and 
lower our unemployment rate.
  I'm not unmindful, and I believe the gentleman from Pennsylvania will 
observe, that apparently there has been some progress made. The 
progress that has been made is unknown to the Democratic side of this 
aisle. Neither the ranking member knows what progress has been made, 
nor the ranking member of the subcommittee knows what progress has been 
made. But we're going to be told, apparently, there is some progress 
that has been made. I hope that's the case. But, very frankly, if that 
progress is not made, we ought to pass the Senate bill.
  When presented with a real chance to lead, frankly, Republicans in my 
view too often have walked away. Whether it was keeping government 
going on continuing resolutions, whether it was on making sure that the 
most reliable and creditworthy Nation in the world did not default on 
its debt, whether it was on passing an Export-Import Bank to make sure 
that we created jobs and were competitive in this country, too often 
our Republican friends have decided not to go there.
  Republicans are unwilling to act on must-pass bills, and in several 
cases played a dangerous game by holding bills hostage. As I said, this 
includes the debt limit crisis last summer and the debate over 
extending the middle class payroll tax last December. Over and over 
again, our Republican colleagues have proven themselves to be the 
``Walk-Away Caucus.''
  This Congress has been in session for only 60 days so far this year. 
Between now and the election, we're scheduled to be in session for 38 
days, but only 30 of those are full work days. Between now and the 
election--that's 4 months from now. Thirty days between today--June 
21--and the election in November.
  With one wasted opportunity after another, they've earned the 112th a 
place in history as truly another ``Do-Nothing Congress,'' a phrase 
made famous by Harry Truman.
  Mr. Speaker, my motion is simple. It instructs the House conferees to 
agree to the Senate's version that is based on bipartisanship and doing 
what's right for our economy. What does that bill mean?
  The Senate bill leverages Federal funding to protect 1.9 million 
jobs. Why is that important? Because we lost 28,000 construction jobs 
last month alone. Why? Because we failed to pass this bill. In addition 
to the 1.9 million jobs that this bill would provide, it would provide 
another 1 million jobs as we expand transportation opportunities.
  In my home State of Maryland, nearly 29,000 jobs are supported by 
Federal transportation investments. Those are jobs of families who are 
paying taxes, sending their kids to school, buying groceries, buying 
goods and services, and supporting our economy.
  In Speaker Boehner's home State of Ohio, over 55,000 jobs are 
supported by this bill. And in Virginia, Republican leader Cantor's 
home State, almost 40,000 jobs are on the line. That highway funding 
expires July 1, just a few days from now.
  For the sake of all these workers, for the sake of all these families 
who rely on these jobs, and for the sake of all those workers and 
families who would be advantaged by the passage of this bill and the 
jobs that it will create--not only save, but create--in Maryland and 
Ohio, in Virginia--my colleague Mr. Moran is here--and across our 
country, let's pass this bill.
  Ladies and gentlemen of this House, let's pass a transportation bill 
that isn't simply another short-term extension. Such extensions provide 
no certainty to the businesses that rely on sound infrastructure to 
move goods to market. Let's pass the long-term reauthorization we need 
that will help put our economy back in drive--not in neutral and not in 
reverse.
  Don't take my word for it why this is so important and so urgent. 
Listen to President Ronald Reagan, who said in 1982--and I'm sure, 
frankly, the gentleman's dad would have supported these statements:
  The time has come to preserve what past Americans spent so much time 
and effort to create, and that means a nationwide conservation effort 
in the best sense of the word. America can't afford throwaway roads or 
disposable transit systems.
  Ladies and gentlemen, it's not too late for this Do-Nothing Congress 
to make a U-turn and get back to work. It's not too late to heed 
President Reagan's wise words. It's not too late to provide our 
businesses with the certainty they're asking for.
  I urge my Republican friends to start working with Democrats to make 
the investments we need to grow jobs and strengthen our competitiveness 
before it's too late. Frankly, that's what the American people expect. 
Let's for once not disappoint them. Let's pass this motion, and work 
together to move this country forward.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  A lot of what Mr. Hoyer said I agree with when it comes to moving a 
transportation bill. I think it is important to America, and our 
infrastructure is the backbone of our economy. We all know, I think, 
that in many places in the country it's crumbling, and we here in 
Congress need to do our job. But this motion to instruct the conferees 
to accept the Senate bill in its entirety is contrary to the purpose of 
having a House and a Senate conference.
  I know my friend from Maryland has been one of the great defenders of 
this institution. To suggest that we should just up and take the Senate 
bill is a bit surprising to me that the gentleman would do that. As I 
said, he's been a real champion to make sure that the House maintains 
its position and he has always been a strong defender.

                              {time}  1350

  Also, I would just like to remind my Democrat colleagues, because 
we've been debating this bill for the past several months--my 
colleagues sometimes need to be reminded that when they controlled both 
the House and the Senate, they weren't able to get a bill out of full 
committee on any basis, partisan or bipartisan. So it has been a 
difficult road. And again, they saw the difficulties back when they 
were in the majority.
  But it's our responsibility to sit down with our Senate colleagues 
and address areas where we have differences of opinion. And I might add 
too that there's a statement that just went out from Chairman Boxer and 
Chairman Mica, a joint statement, that reads:

       The conferees have moved forward toward a bipartisan, 
     bicameral agreement on a highway reauthorization bill. Both 
     House and Senate conferees will continue to work with a goal 
     of completing a package by next week.

  So there's been movement.
  I would urge the gentleman to retract his motion, not offer it, 
because I think there is a point when the chair of the conference and 
the vice chair of the conference are saying, there has been movement, 
that it is very positive. The Senate bill, though, if you will want to 
continue, the Senate bill includes provisions that I have serious 
concerns with; and I believe many on the other side of the aisle would 
have serious concerns about it.
  When they get to study the Senate bill, you will find that it 
requires that all new passenger vehicles, all new passenger vehicles 
beginning in 2015, be equipped with event data recorders. These 
recorders are similar to the

[[Page 9618]]

black boxes that are required in aircraft. While the intent of this 
provision is to collect safety information, I believe many of us would 
see it as a slippery slope toward Big Government and Big Brother 
knowing what we're doing and where we are.
  So, again, I think if my colleagues on the other side--and we've 
talked about different ways to collect data--and those on the other 
side of the aisle have great concerns about allowing information to be 
collected by Big Brother. And privacy is a big concern for many across 
America.
  There are also areas where the Senate bill does not go far enough. 
While the Senate bill includes a few provisions to streamline the 
project delivery process, it does not go far enough. And I believe we 
are at a time in our history--and the gentleman and many people around 
here mentioned my father and the good work that he did, and he did 
great work. But the times have changed in the sense that the last two 
highway bills that were passed, the economy was in good shape, the 
highway trust was flush with cash, and we had the ability, as Members 
of Congress, to direct money back to our States and our districts. So 
it's been a very difficult process, minus those three things.
  Again, these streamlining projects, the Senate bill does not set hard 
deadlines for Federal agencies to approve projects. So they can just go 
on and on and on--and have. And that's why it takes 14 to 15 years to 
build a major highway project in this country.
  I was just out in Oklahoma City a month or so ago. They just opened 
up the Oklahoma City Crosstown Express. It cost $680 million and took 
15 years to build. If we're able to do some of these streamlining 
projects, we believe we can cut that time in half. So if you just look 
at that project in Oklahoma City, $680 million, on inflation alone we 
could have saved $60 million to $80 million on that project alone; $60 
million to $80 million would go a long way in fixing infrastructure in 
Maryland and Pennsylvania and Virginia and New Jersey. So these are the 
kinds of revisions. That's just one, setting the hard deadlines.
  It does not allow State environmental laws to be used in place of 
Federal environmental laws. When a State has a more rigorous 
environmental process, like California, like other States, why do they 
need the Federal Government's approval when theirs goes far beyond what 
we do here in Washington? Or if it's equal to the Federal Government, 
instead of going through a second environmental regulatory process, 
let's let the States use theirs--if it's equal to or exceeds the EPA 
standards.
  It does not expand the list of projects that qualify for categorical 
exclusions. What are categorical exclusions? If you are going to 
replace a bridge with another bridge in the same footprint, if you are 
going to expand a roadbed in the current right-of-way, it would allow 
there to be an abbreviated, a faster review process so that we can get 
those bridges built faster, we can get those lanes added more quickly.
  Again, what it comes down to is saving money. Time is money. I think 
we all know that. And it also does not expedite projects that are being 
rebuilt due to disasters. Again, we've seen it in Minnesota. When the 
bridge collapsed, in 436 days we were able to construct a major bridge 
crossing over that river in Minnesota.
  Also, program consolidation is another important reform that the 
House has been pushing. The Senate has been pushing to add two new 
programs at a dollar cost of $3 billion a year. At a time when the 
highway trust fund is going broke, we should be focusing our limited 
transportation dollars on consolidating programs and eliminating 
wasteful programs, not creating new ones.
  Funding flexibility for the States, another critical point that 
allows the States to fund the most economically significant highway and 
bridge projects in their State. The Federal Government should not 
mandate the States to plant flowers and beautification.
  Even bike paths--and I have been a big supporter of bike paths in the 
past; but today when we have bridges crumbling, when there is safety in 
question, in good conscience we can't tell States to spend that type of 
money. But if they want to, they can. They can opt out. They can spend 
that money if they so desire. But again, I think this is not a time 
when the Federal Government should be telling States to spend money on 
projects that aren't going to be the most beneficial to their 
constituencies. We need to focus those resources.
  These are issues that are not addressed in the Senate bill and should 
be addressed in this conference. And from the statement that I read 
earlier, I believe we are moving in a direction to adopt some of what I 
just talked about.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion. I would urge the 
gentleman, my friend from Maryland, to step back again at a time when 
we're getting so close. As the gentleman fully knows--he's been in this 
institution long enough and has negotiated many, many significant 
pieces of legislation--this is not a time for us to be out here talking 
about it, but to hunker down, make sure the conferees, the two chairmen 
are able to move forward to get a bill that's going to benefit America.
  And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I want to say to the gentleman, the items that he mentioned--some of 
which we may agree on, some of which we may not agree on--frankly, 
could have been included in the bill that the House could have reported 
out of committee and brought to the floor. That didn't happen. What we 
did was, with the inability to pass a bill that came out of your 
committee on the floor of the House, we then repaired to what was 
essentially a shell of a bill to go to conference.
  The problem that I have with the gentleman's statement is I hope that 
the statement that ``we may be getting there'' is correct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HOYER. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  But if we ``may be'' getting there, we're getting there because we've 
constantly done motions like this to get us to the issue. We are 
talking about some 2-plus million jobs. That's why the Chamber of 
Commerce is involved. That's why counties, States, and local 
municipalities are involved, saying, Come to an agreement.
  Very frankly, the bill that we passed here had some things that 
didn't relate to transportation. What the gentleman has mentioned are 
items that dealt with transportation. Your bill, as you well know, had 
items in it which were clearly not acceptable to the President of the 
United States because they were unrelated to transportation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. HOYER. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  The gentleman hasn't mentioned any of those. I am pleased that he 
hasn't mentioned those.
  I hope that the House Republicans have now decided that's not going 
to be the litmus test for whether or not we create jobs and save jobs 
in the transportation field and give certainty to contractors and to 
public entities.
  At this point in time, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from New 
Jersey (Mr. Sires).
  Mr. SIRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Congressman 
Hoyer's motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 4348, the surface 
transportation bill.
  This motion to instruct conferees would ask the conference committee 
to end their differences and support the Senate-passed measure. Senate 
1813, or MAP-21, was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority with 
a final vote of 74-22.
  Tomorrow marks 100 days since the Senate passed their bipartisan 
bill. We have just over 1 week before the extension expires. We cannot 
afford to pass yet another short-term extension. We need to create jobs 
here in America.
  National unemployment is 8.2 percent, and construction unemployment 
is nearly double, at 14.2 percent. Summer has officially started, and 
the construction season is short. We have 1.2

[[Page 9619]]

million unemployed construction workers who are waiting for work.

                              {time}  1400

  MAP-21 is estimated to save 1.9 million jobs and create another 1 
million jobs. We have the legislative solution to create jobs. It is 
the Senate bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to put their differences aside and 
pass a comprehensive reauthorization. MAP-21 was passed on a bipartisan 
majority in the Senate. Let us do the same here in the House and put 
America back to work.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Just in response to my good friend from Maryland, I'm glad he brought 
up some of those other provisions, and they are job-creating 
provisions.
  The RAMP Act will unlock the Harbor Trust Fund so we can invest in 
our ports, which I know the gentleman has a major port in Maryland. But 
those dollars are going to rebuilding and dredging and doing the things 
we need to do to be competitive around the world. So that's a jobs act 
that's in the transportation bill. And I might add, ports are certainly 
transportation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  We have also a reform in there on the coal ash, which is an element 
that goes into making cement. Of course, building roads and bridges, 
it's about cement and concrete. So there's another provision in it we 
believe will help our industries to be able to continue to make and 
produce cement to build our roads.
  Finally, the Keystone pipeline. I think all of America--or most of 
America knows that's been paying attention, which is about 80 percent--
believe it is a positive thing to bring oil and energy to America to 
help power this economy while creating 20,000 jobs and maybe as much as 
a hundred thousand jobs in indirect labor and jobs to this country.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of 
the Science and Technology Committee, Ms. Johnson from Texas.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I rise in support of Democratic 
Whip Hoyer's motion to instruct the conferees, which directs the 
conferees to agree to the Senate-passed transportation bill, MAP-21.
  MAP-21 passed the Senate by a strong bipartisan vote of 74-22, and it 
is critical that the House pass this legislation. We have been waiting 
a very, very long time. I'm from the State of Texas. There's no State 
in the Union that this bill is more important for. Our season is now to 
get highways started. And we have massive infrastructure needs, just 
like the rest of the country.
  Tomorrow does mark the 100th day since the Senate passed the bill, 
and the current reauthorization will expire next week. And while I'm 
encouraged by the progress being made in the conference negotiations, 
we simply cannot afford to delay any longer for individual pleas, for 
individual needs. We all have needs.
  This bill is not perfect. No bill we pass is perfect. But this bill 
is certainly needed to plan and to develop. We have to have time for 
the States to look at what they have available and plan for it. We 
cannot do this like any other bill. This is a transportation bill, 
infrastructure planning bill, and we simply must do something now.
  In addition to it saving 1.9 million jobs, it creates a million jobs. 
It's a jobs bill. We've been talking about passing a jobs bill for the 
last almost 2 years, and nothing has passed yet. I am pleading that we 
all support this motion to instruct, and I encourage my colleagues to 
support it and let's get this bill done.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  To not support Congressman Hoyer's motion to the Senate 
transportation bill for which, many times it's been said, 74 Senators, 
including 22 Republicans, voted for, I would suggest, is to engage in 
nothing less than economic sabotage.
  Well into the construction season, the unemployment rate in the 
construction industry is at least twice the national average, and 
another short-term extension will not bring enough certainty to an 
industry that is hurting as badly as this one is.
  MAP-21 is the single largest jobs bill passed by either body in this 
Congress. In my home State of Illinois alone, MAP-21 will save or 
create nearly 70,000 jobs. Nationwide, the bill will save or create 
nearly 2 million jobs and spur 1 million additional jobs through the 
leveraging of transportation funds.
  It is hard to understand, as we are ending the month of June and 
construction needs to be done all over this country, that we are still 
delaying the passage of a bill that would mean so much to the workers 
across the country and to strengthening our economy. I think that we 
need to support this motion right now, to support MAP-21, and to send 
it to the President's desk immediately.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. I would say to our good friend from Pennsylvania that it 
is hard to believe that Chairman Bud Shuster would not be as troubled 
as we are by the state of the transportation bill. And he would be 
saying as we are: Just do it.
  You have suggested any number of things where we would reach 
agreement, I would say to my friend from Pennsylvania, but this has 
been going on for almost 3 years. It was back in October of 2009 that 
we got a 1-month extension. Then, we extended it for 48 days; then 72 
days; then 16 days; then 9\1/2\ months; then 2 months and 4 days; then 
6 months and 25 days; then 6 months, and 91 days, and now we're talking 
about another 3-month extension.
  Let's just do it. That's why there's instruction to accept the Senate 
bill. If we know what we need, then let's reach compromise and get it 
done. Because meanwhile, people are unemployed. The American people are 
hurting, and the American public is disgusted with the Congress.
  When we had a 13 percent approval rating, I was wondering how we had 
so many family and friends. Well, sure enough, now it's dipped down to 
single digits. Why? Because they don't see us doing anything. They 
don't see us compromising.
  In the Senate, we have a Senate transportation bill where people as 
conservative as Republican Jim Inhofe, the ranking member of Surface 
Transportation, has approved this. It passed. Three-quarters of the 
Senate approved this. Why can't we just accept this and get it done?
  We're talking about almost 3 million jobs that would be saved or 
created. We are in desperate need of jobs. There are jobs in this 
country, and they're going to have a lasting dividend once we improve 
our roads and our bridges and our public transit systems.
  We need to get this done. The American people have been waiting 2\1/
2\ years for this surface transportation bill. That's why the motion to 
instruct is so important and why I support Mr. Hoyer, because this is 
what the American people want. And the fact is that, while it maintains 
current funding levels for highway and public transportation, it 
consolidates highway programs, establishes a national freight program, 
and any number of things.
  We can agree it's not perfect, but it's the best we can do. And the 
American people deserve it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the passion from the gentleman from Virginia, and I 
believe he is a supporter of infrastructure, as am I. I think you were 
referring to the former chairman. I was just emailing back and forth to 
him. He sees much agreement with what we're trying to do in the House. 
He sees the need for reform. And as I've been going through this 
process, I certainly talked to him about some of the things he wishes 
he

[[Page 9620]]

would have been able to accomplish. And what we're doing in this bill 
are things he's applauding. If any of you don't realize, the chairman 
is still alive and well and still consults with his Member of 
Congress--when I ask and when I don't ask, I might add.
  Again, I have to remind my colleagues, and be respectful when I do 
this, when you had the majority, six times you extended without passing 
a bill. And you had a majority in the House and Senate and White House. 
And I might add that, if you would have focused the stimulus bill on an 
infrastructure bill instead of spending it in all different ways that 
didn't have the kind of impact that you thought and, in fact, didn't 
have much of an impact at all, I think we would see a much different 
economy today if we would have focused on this because I know there are 
jobs out there, millions of jobs, in construction and construction-
related businesses where we could help by passing a bill.

                              {time}  1410

  Again, just to remind my colleagues, the House and the Senate, 
chairman and vice chairman, have issued a statement. We are moving in 
the right direction towards a bipartisan, bicameral solution, not just 
a Senate solution. Again, I know that the two gentlemen, the whip and 
of course Mr. Moran from Virginia, have been great defenders of the 
House. For us to just give in to the Senate, I don't think I've ever 
seen them when they were in the majority just handing it off to the 
Senate. So I feel positive.
  Again, I supported Mr. Walz's motion to instruct a few days ago 
because he said get in there, hammer this thing out; come up with a 
bipartisan, bicameral bill. That's why I supported that. Again, on 
this, I just can't support this. I have got to vote against it, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' also.
  And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a supporter of this institution. I am a supporter, 
as Mr. Shuster pointed out, of regular order. I do believe that the 
House has a right and a duty and a responsibility to maintain its 
positions--when it can get to a position.
  Let me reiterate so the American people understand. Speaker Boehner 
said that the highway bill was very important to him. He wanted to see 
it reported out. The committee acted on a bill and never brought it to 
the floor.
  I pause so the American people can understand, the House has been 
unable to take a position. Now my friend will say, oh, no, we did pass 
a bill, and that's correct. Admittedly, however, from everybody's 
perspective, it was not a full bill; it was a shell bill. It was a 
shell bill to go to conference. Did it have some provisions in there? 
Yes, it did. It had Keystone in there, which was clearly unacceptable 
to the President in the form that it was offered and unacceptable to 
the Senate in the form that it was offered.
  Very frankly, my friend from Pennsylvania talks about his dad, who I 
know is very much alive and was a very good Member of this body. I will 
say that we did pass some extensions, all on a bipartisan fashion, as 
you well know. All on a bipartisan fashion. This was not done in a 
bipartisan fashion.
  We could have forged a bill that would have had overwhelming support 
in this House, in my opinion. The Republican side of the aisle chose 
not to do that. And I've got a hunch that my friend sitting in the 
chair, Mr. Shuster, regrets that. He doesn't have to say anything about 
that, but I just have a hunch he regrets that. I regret it. I regret 
that we are not able to come together and reason together, but we take 
hard-line positions that if you don't agree with me, it's my way or no 
highway. That's regrettable. The American people know it's regrettable.
  And I want to tell my friend from Pennsylvania, if it weren't 100 
days ago, as of tomorrow, that a bipartisan--overwhelmingly 
bipartisan--bill was passed, and if this House had been able to pass a 
real highway bill, but we didn't have that opportunity. That bill was 
not brought to the floor. The gentleman knows that bill was not brought 
to the floor. It still languishes in his committee. Or perhaps it's 
been reported out and may be sitting someplace else.
  The fact of the matter is that this motion is designed to say to 1.9 
million people who may lose their job if we don't pass a bill next 
Friday, in a Congress that has been mired in confrontation and 
unwilling to compromise, and another million people who will have job 
opportunities if that bill passes, it is to say, let us act. And we 
have a vehicle on which to act, a vehicle that enjoyed the support of 
all Democrats and half of the Republican Conference in the United 
States Senate, a bill that had agreement between Senator Boxer from 
California, correctly I think described as a liberal Democrat from the 
State of California, and Jim Inhofe, correctly described I believe as a 
conservative Republican from Oklahoma. They came together. They reached 
agreement.
  I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania is probably absolutely 
correct; it's not a perfect bill. I don't know that I've ever voted for 
a perfect bill on the floor of this House, at least one that I thought 
was perfect. That's the nature of this body, that we come together and 
we compromise and everybody doesn't get what they want because maybe 
their region or their people or their businesses or their consumers 
don't see it the same way mine do. We compromise.
  But the Senate bill, while it may not be perfect, enjoyed broad 
bipartisan compromise and support. Therefore, I think it is our best 
opportunity, because we've shown in this House that we have, for the 
last 6 months, been unable to come to agreement, and the Republican 
majority in this House has been unable to agree among itself to bring a 
full bill to the floor.
  So, Mr. Speaker, that does not give much confidence not only to my 
side of the aisle but to those contractors, those construction workers, 
those States, those counties, those municipalities who know that they 
have to address the transportation challenges of their areas. It 
doesn't give them much confidence, and I've heard a lot about building 
confidence.
  I believe that if we passed the Senate bill, we would create those 
jobs, retain the 1.9 million jobs, and give confidence to our economy 
and grow jobs. I hope that's what the other side wants to do. They talk 
a lot about it. And if the economy improved, of course, the 
administration might be advantaged as well. I hope that's not a 
consideration of anybody who considers these pieces of legislation. 
America expects us to come together and reach agreement. The Senate has 
done that. On this side of the Capitol, we have not. We ought to do it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my good 
friend from Maryland's Motion to Instruct House conferees to bring up 
the bipartisan Senate transportation bill. In the 10 most congested 
cities in America--including the Washington DC region which both Mr. 
Hoyer and I represent--drivers spend more than 40 hours a year stuck in 
traffic. That's an entire work week lost to congestion, yet all the 
Republican majority has offered in response is more partisan gridlock.
  Americans are waiting for road improvements, bridge repairs, and more 
transit options. The American economy is waiting for more robust job 
growth. The nation lost 28,000 construction jobs last month and more 
than 2 million construction jobs since the Great Recession began.
  Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower knew investing in 
infrastructure would create jobs and spur the economy so he created the 
American interstate highway system. This March, the Senate passed a 
bipartisan transportation bill--with 22 Republicans on board--to 
alleviate gridlock on our streets and in the halls of Congress. But so 
far, House Republicans have refused to even bring it up for a vote, for 
fear that it might actually pass!
  A robust transportation program such as the bipartisan Senate bill 
helps both American commuters, and the American economy, get moving 
again. If we are going to create jobs and ease commutes, the Republican 
majority must stop idling. I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Hoyer's 
Motion to Instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nunnelee). All time for debate has 
expired.

[[Page 9621]]

  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 noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOYER. 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.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the topic of my motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mrs. Black 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 reject section 31108 of the Senate amendment (relating to 
     distracted driving grants), other than the matter proposed to 
     be inserted as section 411(g) of title 23, United States Code 
     (relating to a distracted driving study).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.

                              {time}  1420

  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We began the 112th Congress by reading the U.S. Constitution as a 
body, and we require that every bill cite the section of the 
Constitution that allows Congress to consider the legislation.
  My motion to instruct simply maintains this desire of the House by 
protecting States' rights under the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment 
reads:

       The powers not delegated to the United States by the 
     Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are 
     reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  I believe that the issue of laws related to distracted driving are 
best left to the States. That's why as a State senator in my home State 
of Tennessee I voted three times for a distracted driving law on the 
books today.
  As a mother and a grandmother and a nurse, I strongly support 
absolute safety on our roadways. I also believe that there's no one in 
this Chamber who doesn't support safe driving laws. But this motion to 
instruct is not about safety; it's about the States' rights under the 
Constitution and stopping Federal manipulation of State law through 
taxpayer-funded distracted driving grants.
  Now, the Senate passed a highway bill, Senate Bill 1813, that 
contains a provision that would grant the U.S. Department of 
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood $79 million to entice the States to 
enact and enforce Federal distracted driving laws, something that 39 
States already have on their books--39 States have already enacted 
these laws.
  I believe the States are great laboratories for determining what 
works and what does not work. That is why my motion to instruct keeps 
intact a study--wants a study to be conducted on all forms of 
distracted driving. This helps government and also the public better 
understand and identify the most effective methods to educate drivers 
and enhance States' understanding of these issues so that they can 
enact and tailor laws best suited to the individual needs of their 
States.
  I'm offering a motion to instruct that simply strikes the distracted 
driving grant funding language contained in the Senate-passed bill, 
while calling for a study to be conducted on all forms of distracted 
driving. This helps government and the public better understand and 
identify the most effective methods to educate the drivers and enhance 
the States' understanding of these issues so they can enact and tailor 
laws best suited to the individual needs of their State. What is best 
for the State of Massachusetts may not be best for the State of 
Montana. And as the 10th Amendment to our Constitution was written, 
these laws are reserved for individual States.
  Now, just as we must provide certainty to job creators, we must 
provide certainty to States on the highway bill. The only way to 
accomplish this task is to allow for focused use of taxpayer dollars 
that is produced in a multiyear transportation bill that restricts the 
highway fund to its intended use, that is, building and maintaining 
America's roads and bridges. Taxpayer dollars are so precious, they 
should not be used on anything other than the intended purpose.
  I urge my colleagues to protect states' rights and support my motion 
to instruct.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The motion offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) 
seeks to eliminate a distracted driving grant program included in the 
Senate surface transportation authorization bill. I oppose this motion 
because it ignores the significant safety hazard that distracted 
driving poses to drivers, commuters, passengers, and pedestrians.
  Distracted driving is any activity behind the wheel that takes a 
driver's attention away from the road. The rapid development and 
ubiquitous use of technology such as cell phones, smart phones, and in-
vehicle touch screens has made routine distraction an almost 
commonplace occurrence in every vehicle across America.
  According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 
2010 more than 3,000 Americans were killed in crashes involving a 
distracted driver and approximately 416,000 additional Americans were 
injured.
  Distractions from technology can include texting, talking on a phone, 
or using a navigation system or other audio or visual equipment while 
in a vehicle. But because text messaging requires visual, manual, and 
cognitive attention from the driver all at the same time, it is by far 
the most dangerous distraction.
  The Wireless Association reported that in June 2011 more than 196 
billion text messages were sent or received in the United States, which 
is up nearly 50 percent from just 2 years ago over the same period. The 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also reported that more 
than 100,000 drivers are texting and more than 600,000 drivers are 
using cell phones at any given moment in time. Sending or receiving a 
text takes a driver's attention from the road for an average of 4.6 
seconds, which, while it may not seem like a long time, it's the 
equivalent of driving the length of an entire football field, taking 
the driver's eyes off the road. It's not surprising that, according to 
research done by Virginia Tech, a texting driver is 23 times more 
likely to be involved in a crash than a non-distracted driver.
  The proposed grant program in the Senate bill is an opportunity to 
address the rapidly growing problem of distracted driving and to 
educate the driving public about the real and immediate dangers of 
distraction behind the wheel.
  Mr. Speaker, thousands of American lives are at stake. And these are 
not statistics. These are people--like 21-year-old Casey Feldman, who 
was struck and killed by a distracted driver as she crossed the street 
in Ocean City, New Jersey in 2009. It's people like 56-year-old John 
Sligting, who was killed on his motorcycle when a teen driver talking 
on her cell phone missed a stop sign in June 2007. It's people like 13-
year-old Margay Schee, who was killed on her school bus when a 
distracted driver rear-ended that bus in September 2008.
  Although some on the other side of the aisle are skeptical of 
seemingly

[[Page 9622]]

every Federal program, we must avoid the temptation to eliminate 
programs without considering the real impacts they have on the lives of 
our constituents and on communities all across America.
  To the point the gentlewoman, my friend from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), 
raised in her opening remarks, the distracted driving grant program 
contained in the Senate bill is merely an incentive program, not 
mandatory. It's an incentive for States that have already passed laws 
and have them on the books. Therefore, there are no sanctions if States 
do not pass laws or participate. There are no penalties to not 
participate.
  So, Mr. Speaker, to put it simply, this motion represents a giant 
step backwards in highway safety for all of America.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this motion to instruct, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  I guess I, as well as others, are here today to plead the 10th 
Amendment. You see, texting while driving is dangerous, and it should 
be stopped. Careless driving of any form is dangerous, and it should be 
stopped. We should be grateful for every effort to educate our drivers 
as to the significance of this particular effort, but the question has 
to be: Are the efforts only to be done in this particular body?
  A driver's license is a State certificate. Driving is a State 
privilege. And even though Congress has, in the past, overstepped our 
responsibility in involving ourselves in these areas--and that was 
wrong--that is certainly not justification for continuing that practice 
ever forward. The Commerce Clause does not necessarily expand to this 
area. The Senators, in their wisdom, have included a provision in there 
dealing with this issue. It's a noble concept. It's a worthy goal.
  The approval or disapproval of texting while driving is not the 
issue. The issue is not should it happen; the issue is who, at which 
level, should decide if it happens and what the consequences should be.

                              {time}  1430

  The issue is, are we the only ones who have the opportunity of 
breathing the air of the Potomac River, the only ones smart enough to 
be involved in this issue, the only ones compassionate enough to be 
involved in this issue. I would contend to you that those who are in 
our States are equally competent to handle this issue.
  It's been mentioned, 39 States already outlaw texting. Ten outlaw any 
kind of a handheld communication while driving. Thirty-two States ban 
all sorts of these efforts with novice drivers. My State of Utah has 
moved forward in this particular area. And yet the Senate has now put 
in $79 million to incentivize States to do what they're already doing.
  We tried to pass a balanced budget amendment on this floor. It failed 
and I felt sad about that; but I realized also we can accomplish the 
exact same goals if we respect federalism, which, of course, was 
reinforced in the 10th Amendment. Federalism simply would require the 
Federal Government to concentrate on the core constitutional 
responsibilities given to us in that document and allow the States the 
flexibility to solve the other problems.
  States do not have the kind of restrictions established in the 
Constitution that we have. States can be far more creative than a one-
size-fits-all program from Washington. States can be much more 
effective in the way they run their programs. States can actually apply 
justice to unique circumstances within their State borders. That can 
never be accomplished by Washington. Our only ability is to make sure 
that everything is uniform. We can accomplish the same goal if we 
respect the authority of States.
  $79 million is a high price to pay for the arrogance that only we 
here in Washington can do things well. The States are doing it. Not 
everything has to be ordained, funded, and controlled by those who sit 
on this floor. The States have every competence, every ability. We 
should support the 10th Amendment and recognize the States should do 
this. They will do a better job than we.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. We have no further speakers. I yield myself as much time 
as I may consume.
  The previous speaker talks about States being the innovators. I 
certainly agree on that.
  This motion that we are talking about right now involves a State 
incentive program where States can qualify for Federal money for an 
optional grant that they may choose to participate in or not. If they 
do not choose to participate, they are free to pass any distracted-
driver laws they wish or not. There is nothing in what is contained in 
the Senate bill that in any way inhibits or prohibits or 
disincentivizes States from passing their own distracted-driving laws. 
They are still free to do whatever they want to do and go as far or not 
as they want to go.
  All the Senate language says is that if States choose to meet the 
higher Federal standards, they may qualify for potential limited grant 
money that will be made available. No State is sanctioned for not 
participating.
  With that, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend and 
colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from 
Tennessee for yielding time and also for bringing this amendment 
forward to instruct the conferees on the transportation bill.
  If you look at what the amendment, what the motion to instruct, is 
saying, first of all, we recognize that 39 States have already put laws 
on the books to address problems with distracted drivers. It's a 
national problem. But every State, just as they have the right and the 
responsibility to create their own laws on issuing driver's licenses, 
each State has their own age requirements, their own speed limit 
requirements. Each State has to look at the unique problems that are 
posed by distracted drivers within that State.
  In fact, in our State of Louisiana, we have a ban on texting while 
driving. And the legislature has gone back and forth on other forms of 
whether or not you can use a cell phone with a Bluetooth or with a 
speaker in your car if it's enabled to do that. And so technology 
changes, and the local States have the ability to be flexible enough to 
change their laws according to how it best suits their State.
  Ultimately, by having a $79 million pot of money that would be up to 
the Secretary of Transportation to enforce as Federal distracted-
driving laws, I think it gets away from the whole concept of the fact 
that States are the ones that are in charge of doing this, and the 
States know best what needs to happen in their States.
  Driving laws in Louisiana are a lot different than they are in 
California or New York or somewhere else. That's what the 10th 
Amendment is all about. That's why you have elected officials at the 
State and local levels to handle the problems that are unique to each 
area. And the fact that you've got a $79 million pot of money that 
would only be put at the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation, 
just for this purpose, instead of using the $79 million to build roads 
throughout the country, or to allow the States to do what they think is 
best to improve safety in other ways, there are many things that need 
to be done in each of our States to improve safety on the roads.
  And if a State's done a good job of addressing their texting problems 
and the distracted-driving problems as it relates to cell phones and 
other things, somebody eating and sitting in their car, ultimately the 
States know best what to do. And if they've got more flexibility with 
the money--this isn't Washington money, by the way. They're paying into 
it. Every citizen back home, when they buy gasoline, is paying taxes. 
This is their money. It's not the Federal Government's money to say $79 
million is only available for the things that we think are most likely 
to increase safety, when the States

[[Page 9623]]

know what's better. Local people on the ground, people paying those 
taxes know what's better to increase safety. And you're not allowing 
them to use that money for the things that actually would improve 
safety even more.
  So by limiting this $79 million to a fund that the Secretary himself 
in Washington would give out, let's let the States have that money 
back, money that they've paid in already, and let them do what they 
know is best to increase safety, whether they think it's putting 
guardrails on roads where the guardrails have broken off and they don't 
have the money to put that back in place, or whether it's to put 
railroad crossings. We have so many deaths by people who cross 
railroads where there's no crossing, and yet it's very expensive to 
build those.
  States would like the ability to use the money to increase safety and 
stop the deaths that occur by spending it there. Yet this $79 million 
isn't allowed for that.
  Let the States do what they know best because it's their money. It's 
the people's money. It's not Washington's money. And some Washington 
bureaucrat who thinks he knows best how to handle a problem at a 
Federal level that applies to all States when it works differently in 
every State, the challenges, the safety challenges that face our 
citizens are very different in each State, especially as it relates to 
driving on the road.
  So, again, I want to thank the gentlelady for bringing this motion to 
instruct. I surely support the motion and also encourage everybody else 
in this Chamber to support it because, ultimately, if you've got $79 
million that can be much better used to increase safety in other ways, 
why would you want to cordon it off and only allow it to be used for 
one way, when maybe 39 different States have 39 different ideas of how 
to do it better?
  Well, we can learn from them for once instead of trying to have this 
top-down approach where Washington knows best. I think it could be 
handled much differently, much better at the local level. At the end 
it's their money anyway.
  So I urge approval of this motion to instruct.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Yielding myself as much time as I would consume, I 
would, again, make the point that the program in question in no way 
sanctions, penalizes, disincentivizes, discourages or prohibits States 
from, in any way, addressing driver safety. It in no way prohibits 
States from being innovative, from creating new technologies, new 
programs, doing things that are not recommended in the bill or this 
program. States are free to do whatever they want to do on this issue.
  So to continually pound away at the point that we're somehow taking 
away the ability of States to be flexible is simply incorrect. It's not 
consistent with the program in question. It's not consistent with the 
language of the bill we are discussing.
  With that, I would inquire of my friend--I have no more speakers on 
our side--is she prepared to close?
  Mrs. BLACK. I am.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  This is a worthy goal. As I've already said, I'm a nurse. I'm a 
grandmother. I'm a mother. I want safety on our roads.
  I have served in the State legislative body where I have voted three 
times on distracted driving. We did our studies, we found what the 
problems were in the State of Tennessee. We were able to pass laws to 
make the roads safer.

                              {time}  1440

  Careless driving of any form must be stopped, and I applaud the piece 
in the bill that will create more study so that States can have more 
information about just what they need to craft in their State that will 
be identified as distracted driving.
  Obviously, distracted driving does not just mean cell phones, and it 
does not just mean texting. There are other forms of distracted 
driving--a mother turning around to correct her small child who is 
sitting in the back seat. I personally have seen those kinds of 
accidents. Someone reaching for a CD to put in one's disk, I personally 
have seen the devastation from that action. There are many forms of 
distracted driving, and this study will help us and the States and the 
public to understand what those forms of distracted driving are. In my 
motion, that is left in place.
  Again, we have to be very cautious about our dollars and how it is 
that we hand our dollars out. I talk about this almost like legislative 
candy, this $79 million, to incentivize or to entice States to do 
something, and 39 of them are already doing something related to 
distracted driving.
  As a matter of fact, if we take a look at this whole discussion on 
the transportation bill, we know how precious every dollar is. We're 
talking about infrastructure and about creating jobs. This $79 million 
can be best used by its intended programs, which are to build roads and 
bridges and to make our roads safer by making sure that our roads and 
our infrastructure are in the best shape. States are already doing this 
job. We don't need to take $79 million and hand it out to States--using 
candy to get them to do what we want them to do.
  Absolutely, safety is the major issue, but States can make that 
decision. States have enough knowledge to know what's best for their 
States.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to protect States' rights and 
to support my motion to instruct.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
Black Motion to Instruct.
  This motion is a step back for highway safety, and a step back for 
our country. This country has done a lot to improve highway safety in 
the last thirty years. We've mandated safety belt use. We've addressed 
our many of our most dangerous intersections and developed better 
signage and more visible traffic signals. And we created a federal 
mandate that raised the drinking age to 21.
  But there are new challenges--and distracted driving is one of the 
most important. This motion is exactly the opposite of what we should 
be voting on.
  We should be doing everything in our power to encourage responsible 
driving and protect lives. Couching this argument in the 10th amendment 
is simply cover for irresponsible legislation.
  There are numerous grant programs throughout the federal government 
that provide funding for states based on national policies that 
Congress wants to advance. To single out a safety program is totally 
out of left field--or rather, right field in this case.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion.
  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. ALTMIRE. 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.

                          ____________________