Volume 157, No. 30 covering the 1st Session of the 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 662, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2011” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H1473-H1480 on March 2, 2011.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 662, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
EXTENSION ACT OF 2011
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 128 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 128
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 662) to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; (2) the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative Mica of Florida or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
{time} 1330
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 128 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 662. This rule provides for ample debate and opportunities for Members on both sides of the aisle, the majority and minority, to make sure that they have ample time to participate, come to the floor, and express their ideas, which is what this new Republican majority is enabling Members to do.
I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. The underlying legislation is a simple extension of service transportation programs through September 30 of this year.
This legislation was introduced by the distinguished chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Chairman Mica, on February 11, 2011, with Ranking Member Rahall as an original cosponsor. It was reported out of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure by a voice vote on February 28, 2011. This legislation went through regular order with bipartisan support.
This is a clean, straight extension of current law, providing a hard freeze at 2009 spending levels through the end of this fiscal year. Without this legislation, the spending levels would expire on Friday, March 4, 2011.
In an effort to provide more transparency and accountability of how this body has been run, which is different than how this body has been run for the past 4 years, the Republican Conference adopted a policy that would no longer permit extensions of programs on a continuing resolution or any other appropriations bills. This allows Members a straight up or down vote on an issue at hand and, in this case, it is surface transportation.
The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011 continues the authorization of Federal highway, transit, and highway safety programs through the end of this fiscal year at the same program funding levels established for fiscal year 2009. This authorization is essential to allow funds that had been included in transportation appropriations legislation to flow to States and local transit agencies. We are not trying to get in the way of decisions that need to be made locally; we are simply trying to make sure that they are legally executed.
Should this straight extension of transportation funding not be signed into law before the March 4 deadline, the impact would be severe and immediate. A shutdown would result in immediate furloughs and suspension of payments to States, which would hamper the Federal Highway Administration's ability to pay contractors. This would jeopardize the States' transportation funding to a tune of $154 million a day, killing ongoing projects, things which had been agreed on and are being done locally.
This level of funding was extended by the previous Congress six times starting in October of 2009. Continuing this funding at 2009 levels allows for the appropriate funding for States to complete and manage their transportation projects. With an extension through the fiscal year, it will allow the new chairman of the Transportation Committee, my dear friend, the favorite son and gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) the appropriate time to hold necessary hearings to review and re-
estimate the funding essential for States to carry on their transportation projects.
The Congressional Budget Office, which is also known as the CBO, has concluded that the underlying bill today does not affect direct spending or revenues. Further, the CBO determined that, ``the nontax provisions of H.R. 662 contain no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments.''
Additionally, according to the Department of Transportation, surface transportation allows for international trade, which helps sustain and create jobs that support our national economy.
The data reported in the past 10 years says that U.S. surface transportation trade between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, has increased 48.6 percent, a 13.8 percent increase in the past year alone. In December 2010, imports were up 41.9 percent compared to December 2000, while exports were up 57.7 percent.
Currently, this trade is valued at $66.5 billion annually. In an ever increasing global market, the United States needs to ensure that our surface infrastructure can sustain the tremendous growth rate of trade so that we can maintain international competitiveness, create jobs and encourage economic growth in the United States of America.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I applaud the Republican leadership for following regular order for the bipartisan nature of this bill, for Republicans and Democrats working together through the entire process, and up to and including the gentleman, Mr. Dreier, the chairman of the Rules Committee, extending an unusual amount of time so that every single Member has an opportunity to come to this body and not only voice what they believe is important to them but also the time where they can come down and speak to important matters of this Congress.
The chairman and ranking member continue to work together to provide a necessary extension that will get us through the rest of the year, and I look forward to an open and transparent process for the reauthorization for next year's funding also. I have confidence in not only Chairman Mica, but also John Boehner and Eric Cantor, as they lead this House of Representatives on transportation issues, to do what's right for a beautiful country that expects Congress to have an open and transparent process that is good for all Members.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
December 2010 Surface Trade With Canada and Mexico Rose 13.8 Percent from December 2009 (State Rankings in Tables 5 and 7)
Trade using surface transportation between the United States and its North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partners Canada and Mexico was 13.8 percent higher in December 2010 than in December 2009, reaching $66.5 billion, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (Table 1).
BTS, a part of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, reported that the value of U.S. surface transportation trade with Canada and Mexico fell 2.2 percent in December 2010 from November 2010 (Table 2). Month-to-month changes can be affected by seasonal variations and other factors.
Surface transportation consists largely of freight movements by truck, rail and pipeline. In December, 84.8 percent of U.S. trade by value with Canada and Mexico moved on land.
The value of U.S. surface transportation trade with Canada and Mexico in December was up 12.6 percent compared to December 2005, and up 48.6 percent compared to December 2000, a period of 10 years. Imports in December were up 41.9 percent compared to December 2000, while exports were up 57.7 percent (Table 3).
U.S. Surface Transportation Trade with Canada
U.S.-Canada surface transportation trade totaled $39.8 billion in December, up 12.2 percent compared to December 2009. The value of imports carried by truck was 17.7 percent higher in December 2010 compared to December 2009, while the value of exports carried by truck was 10.4 percent higher during this period (Table 4).
Michigan led all states in surface trade with Canada in December with $4.7 billion (Table 5).
U.S. Surface Transportation Trade with Mexico
U.S.-Mexico surface transportation trade totaled $26.8 billion in December, up 16.3 percent compared to December 2009. The value of imports carried by truck was 16.3 percent higher in December 2010 than December 2009 while the value of exports carried by truck was 18.7 percent higher (Table 6).
Texas led all states in surface trade with Mexico in December with $9.5 billion (Table 7).
The TransBorder Freight Data are a unique subset of official U.S. foreign trade statistics released by the U.S. Census Bureau. New data are tabulated monthly and historical data are not adjusted for inflation. December TransBorder numbers include data received by BTS as of Feb. 16.
The news release and summary tables can be found at http://
www.bts.gov. More information on TransBorder Freight Data and data from previous months are posted on the BTS website at http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/. BTS will release January TransBorder numbers on March 29.
TABLE 1--VALUE OF MONTHLY U.S. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION TRADE WITH CANADA AND MEXICO
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent change Percent change
Month 2008 2009 2010 2008-2009 2009-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January.................................. 65,160 47,459 56,697 -27.2 19.5
February................................. 69,406 47,938 59,492 -30.9 24.1
March.................................... 70,787 51,055 69,943 -27.9 37.0
April.................................... 74,317 49,729 65,831 -33.1 32.4
May...................................... 74,128 47,881 66,805 -35.4 39.5
June..................................... 74,139 50,753 69,859 -31.5 37.6
July..................................... 71,628 51,545 61,260 -28.0 18.8
August................................... 72,254 54,254 67,964 -24.9 25.3
September................................ 71,801 57,294 68,324 -20.2 19.3
October.................................. 72,683 61,400 70,565 -15.5 14.9
November................................. 60,661 58,922 68,060 -2.9 15.5
December................................. 52,910 58,465 66,530 10.5 13.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual............................... 829,875 636,695 791,329 -23.3 24.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.
Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.aov/programs/international/transborder/.
TABLE 2.--U.S. SURFACE TRADE WITH CANADA AND MEXICO BY MODE OF TRANSPORTATION
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
change Percent
Mode December 2009 November December November change
2010 2010 December December
2010 2009-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Surface Modes:
Imports......................... 32,030................ 36,544 36,345 -0.5 13.5
Exports......................... 26,435............... 31,516 30,185 -4.2 14.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 58,465............... 68,060 66,530 -2.2 13.8
Truck:
Imports......................... 19,223............... 23,761 22,480 -5.4 16.9
Exports......................... 20,600............... 24,660 23,390 -5.1 13.5
Rail:
Imports......................... 6,451................ 7,222 7,106 -1.6 10.2
Exports......................... 3,317................ 3,912 3,785 -3.2 14.1
Pipeline:
Imports......................... 5,125................ 4,413 5,157 16.9 0.6
Exports......................... 373.................. 482 549 13.9 47.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding. The
value of trade for all surface modes is not equal to the sum of truck, rail and pipeline modes, it also
includes shipments made by mail, foreign trade zones, and other transportation. For additional detail refer to
the ``Data Fields'' Section of the TransBorder web page: http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/
TBDR_DataFields.html.
Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/.
TABLE 3.--DECEMBER 2010 SURFACE TRADE WITH CANADA AND MEXICO COMPARED
WITH DECEMBER OF PRIOR YEARS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent change
Compared to December in . . -------------------------------------------
. Total surface
Imports Exports trade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009........................ 13.5 14.2 13.8
2008........................ 25.7 25.8 25.7
2007........................ 5.4 14.3 9.2
2006........................ 7.2 20.1 12.7
2005........................ 5.3 22.8 12.6
2004........................ 22.5 34.8 27.8
2003........................ 40.1 54.9 46.5
2002........................ 54.0 75.6 63.1
2001........................ 66.7 83.5 74.0
2000........................ 41.9 57.7 48.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/programs/
international/transborder/.
TABLE 4.--U.S. MERCHANDISE TRADE WITH CANADA BY SURFACE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
change Percent
Mode December November December November- change
2009 2010 2010 December December
2010 2009-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Surface Modes............ Imports......... 18,926 20,461 21,432 4.7 13.2
Exports......... 16,521 19,012 18,330 -3.6 10.9
Total........... 35,447 39,472 39,762 0.7 12.2
Truck........................ Imports......... 8,836 10,373 10,399 0.3 17.7
Exports......... 12,776 14,667 14,106 -3.8 10.4
Rail......................... Imports......... 4,121 4,893 4,707 -3.8 14.2
Exports......... 1,825 2,133 2,095 -1.8 14.8
Pipeline..................... Imports......... 5,107 4,398 5,142 16.9 0.7
Exports......... 251 306 227 -26.0 -9.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding. The
value of trade for all surface modes is not equal to the sum of truck, rail and pipeline modes, it also
includes shipments made by mail, foreign trade zones, and other transportation. For additional detail refer to
the ``Data Fields'' Section of the TransBorder web page: http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/
TBDR_DataFields.html.
Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/programs/intemational/transborder/.
TABLE 5.--TOP 10 STATES TRADING WITH CANADA BY SURFACE MODES OF
TRANSPORTATION, RANKED BY DECEMBER 2010 SURFACE TRADE VALUE
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
December
Rank State 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................. Michigan.............. 4,672
2.................................. Illinois.............. 3,824
3.................................. New York.............. 3,276
4.................................. California............ 2,462
5.................................. Ohio.................. 2,394
6.................................. Texas................. 2,300
7.................................. Washington............ 1,551
8.................................. Pennsylvania.......... 1,486
9.................................. Minnesota............. 1,288
10................................. Indiana............... 1,202
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/programs/
intemational/transborder/.
TABLE 6.--U.S. MERCHANDISE TRADE WITH MEXICO BY SURFACE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
December November December Percent change change
Mode 2009 2010 2010 November-December December
2010 2009-2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Surface Modes............................. Imports.......................... 13,104 16,083 14,913 -7.3 13.8
Exports.......................... 9,914 12,504 11,855 -5.2 19.6
Total............................ 23,018 28,587 26,768 -6.4 16.3
Truck......................................... Imports.......................... 10,387 13,389 12,081 -9.8 16.3
Exports.......................... 7,824 9,993 9,284 -7.1 18.7
Rail.......................................... Imports.......................... 2,330 2,328 2,399 3.0 2.9
Exports.......................... 1,491 1,780 1,690 -5.0 13.3
Pipeline...................................... Imports.......................... 18 15 15 4.0 -13.1
Exports.......................... 122 175 322 83.8 165.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding. The value of trade for all surface modes is
not equal to the sum of truck, rail and pipeline modes, it also includes shipments made by mail, foreign trade zones, and other transportation. For
additional detail refer to the ``Data Fields'' Section of the TransBorder web page: http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/
TBDR_DataFields.html
Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/.
TABLE 7.--TOP 10 STATES TRADING WITH MEXICO BY SURFACE MODES OF
TRANSPORTATION RANKED BY DECEMBER 2010 SURFACE TRADE VALUE
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
December
Rank State 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................. Texas................. 9,459
2.................................. California............ 4,073
3.................................. Michigan.............. 2,922
4.................................. Arizona............... 979
5.................................. Illinois.............. 915
6.................................. Ohio.................. 686
7.................................. Tennessee............. 497
8.................................. Indiana............... 445
9.................................. Georgia............... 414
10................................. North Carolina........ 399
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/programs/
international/transborder/.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my good friend from Texas for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 662, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011, prevents our Nation's highway, transit, and safety programs from expiring ahead of the upcoming construction season by extending them at fiscal year 2010 funding levels through September 30 of this year.
My friend from Texas referenced the fact that it would be bad if we did not do this before March 4, and I agree with him thoroughly. I am hopeful that he has the same attitude with reference to the overall aspect of any kind of shutdown of the government. A shutdown would be bad in any of its particulars, and not just as he referenced it, that I agree with, in the area of transportation and infrastructure.
This extension allows States to continue signing contracts, managing planning and construction, and paying for vital transportation and infrastructure projects while we finalize a multiyear authorization to update our network. As all of us know, our interstate highways, roads, and bridges are in desperate need of repairs and improvements. All you have to do is drive around Washington to prove that.
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers in their 2009 report card, which rates the operational condition and future capacity of dams, levees, railways, roads, bridges, and transit by letter grade, our Nation's surface infrastructure is rated at a ``D.''
{time} 1340
This is deplorable and, frankly, it's embarrassing--embarrassing for several reasons. I came here in 1992. We were advocating on both sides of the aisle that we should be about the business of repairing bridges in this country, and the multiples are enormous from that time. We were talking 14,000 bridges.
More than 26 percent of our Nation's bridges today are either
``structurally deficient or functionally obsolete,'' with the number of such bridges in urban areas on the rise. And we have seen what disasters can occur when a bridge collapses.
Existing rail capacity is inadequate to handle future freight and passenger rail growth without significant investment. Last year, I took the Amtrak to New York, and when returning to Washington, I looked at the rail underbed. I grew up near a railroad in Altamonte Springs, Florida. And the railbed in that time where I grew up in the 40s was 100 percent better than the railbed just outside of this city on the Amtrak line. That's ridiculous.
Our interstate highway program has changed little since it was created in the 1950s by the distinguished President, Dwight Eisenhower's vision. With ever-increasing congestion--and we see it right around here--and improvement costs, our Nation's roads were even poorer at a D-minus in 2009. One-third of America's roads are in poor or mediocre condition, and 45 percent of major urban highways are congested.
Just last January, the main road in and out of one of the cities that I'm privileged to represent, the city of Pahokee, was closed for 17 days because of sunken asphalt. Now, that may not sound like much, a little old town like Pahokee being cut off. But a collapsed culvert had created a 2-inch dip measuring 252 square feet in size on the northbound lane of State Road 715. This resulted in hours-long detours for commuters and trucks, stymied local and regional business, and regrettably reduced access to Glades General Hospital and Pahokee Airport.
Similar stories can be found throughout my home State of Florida and indeed in communities across this Nation. We can, and we must, do better.
Just as routine and preventive health care costs much less than a trip to the emergency room, regular maintenance and improvements cost less than major overhauls and replacement. According to Transportation for America, for every dollar that we spend today on maintenance, we avoid $14 in future costs.
H.R. 662 obligates up to $42.5 billion for Federal-aid highway programs and $639 million for the equity bonus programs to ensure that States receive in Federal highway funds a certain portion of the gasoline taxes that they contribute.
Investing in our Nation's roads is about more than getting from point A to point B faster, which would be, in many respects, reason enough for many commuters. It's about having more time, about having more money, and about having more opportunities to work, play, live, and enjoy life. Americans spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic at a cost to the economy of $78.2 billion. That averages to $710 per motorist. Furthermore, poor conditions cost motorists $67 billion a year in repairs and operating costs.
One way to ease congestion is getting more people to use public transit. In fact, transit use increased 25 percent between 1995 and 2005, faster than any other mode of transportation. However, nearly half of American households do not have access to bus or rail transit, and only 25 percent have what they consider to be a good alternative.
On that note, increasing the capacity of our transportation and infrastructure network means nothing if our roads are not safe. Each year, thousands of people die in road crashes in the United States, and millions more are injured or disabled. As cochair of the Congressional Caucus on Global Road Safety, I recognize that road crash fatalities and disabilities represent a serious public health concern. This extension authorizes $742 billion in highway-safety programs administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, as well as $597 million for truck-safety activities of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, in order to help save lives and minimize crash-related injuries.
Safe, dependable, and efficient transportation is essential to our economic recovery and our Nation's competitiveness. At a time when unemployment in the construction industry is double the national rate, this extension provides much-needed market stability to create and sustain thousands of jobs.
The transportation sector has played a crucial role in rebuilding the U.S. economy, most recently through the Recovery Act, which provided
$27.5 billion in new funding for surface transportation programs through the existing Federal-aid highway program and $8.4 billion for transit. In addition, $1.5 billion and $600 million were made available in two rounds, respectively, by the discretionary grant program known as TIGER, the Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery.
Extending these highway, transit, and other surface transportation programs is not only essential to our Nation's continued economic recovery, but also to our long-term prosperity and future. Today, we find ourselves on the cusp of a great opportunity, the opportunity to make meaningful investments in the future of this country, improve our quality of life and cut future debt. We need a truly interconnected, multi-modal system that effectively utilizes high-speed rail, light rail, streetcars, van pools, motor carriers by water, efficient buses, cars and bikes. We need a system that helps ensure that lower-income workers can also get to and hold down jobs, a system that gets people where they need to go, increases our energy independence through new sources and innovative technologies, improves air quality, reduces traffic deaths and injuries, and creates jobs by supporting America's hard-hit construction and manufacturing sectors.
It is imperative that we not only extend the surface transportation programs through the end of the current fiscal year, but also pass a multi-year--yes, multi-year, as many as a 6-year--reauthorization as soon as possible. A new multi-year surface transportation authorization will create even more jobs and ensure that we can meet our growing transportation needs in the 21st century in a way that is affordable, efficient, innovative, resilient, sustainable, and accountable.
In this country, highways, roads, bridges and transit are neither Democratic nor Republican. They serve all Americans and help bring us closer together, literally.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Carlsbad, California (Mr. Bilbray), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
{time} 1350
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, I think this is an opportunity for all of us, both Democrats and Republicans, to talk openly and frankly about the fact that we are at a point in our history where we need to not only spend money, but we have to be smarter, too. I think too often in Washington we are thinking that our degree of efficiency or compassion is based on how much we spend and not how well we accomplish our goals.
I would only ask my colleague who just addressed us to join with some of us who say that we need to be smarter. As a former member of the Air Resources Board in California, I can show you studies that have been done by very noted research people that point out--one study alone that says we could reduce fuel and emission problems by 22.6 percent. But to do that, we not only have to address what is the private sector doing in Detroit in building cars, but what is the government sector doing in controlling those cars when they are on the road.
One of the biggest problems we have is Washington sends money out for projects, but we do not hold those projects to a standard that has been upgraded to 21st century standards. An example: There are studies that have shown that 97 percent of all stop signs that you and I stop for every day, Mr. Speaker, don't have to be stop signs. Those could be yield signs. Now granted, there are those sites with sight-distance problems where you have to have stops. But when you and I go drive down out of our home tomorrow morning, think about when you stop, why are you stopping? It's not for safety. Lord forbid, it's not for fuel consumption or for environmental conservation; it is because the law says you have to stop, even though there is a cost in environmental and economic impact. The safety factor is not the factor being determined. It is easier for a local government to give you a ticket on a stop sign, or at least that perception is there, when a yield sign is just as enforceable.
A good example is why is a four-way stop always the easiest and the cheapest way for a government to be able to control an intersection when everybody knows that a roundabout has been proven to be a major source of safety and environmental and economic benefit.
The fact is that communities that have been brave enough to try new traffic control, like the new computer-engineered roundabouts and traffic circles, have not only proven that it reduces congestion by a huge amount because it stops the queuing approach; it also eliminates that pollution that stop signs cause by five times more polluting than allowing somebody to drive through an intersection at low speed, that roundabouts do. But it also eliminates, as the gentleman who just spoke brought up, the safety factor. A roundabout eliminates the T-boning where fatalities occur. Actually, by going to the next generation of traffic control, we can not only address fuel consumption and pollution, but we can make our roads safer.
So I really call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's look at making sure that when we send this money over to the States and the cities and the counties--and I was a mayor. I ran a transit system, the San Diego trolley system. We helped build that system. We need to make sure that we are doing the right thing in government. And one of the things that we are not doing in government that we can do and lead through example, if we truly care about public safety, environmental protection and fuel efficiency, if we really want to lead, let's not mandate on the private sector that they have to do something if we're not willing to look at our colleagues here in government and say: We have to reform ourselves.
I call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let's work together. Let's start saying, look, local governments, counties and cities; the environmental, economic, and safety impacts of you not upgrading your traffic control to an efficient system is costing our economy 22.6 percent more than it should. It is costing our environment 22.6 percent that it shouldn't. And the fact is, we don't know how many lives we can save until we are willing to do that.
I call on both sides, let's get together and work on this and set an example for the rest of the world.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I say to my colleague and my friend from California, sign me up.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), the ranking member of the Railroad Subcommittee and my classmate. We came here together.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I thank my classmate for giving me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the rule. I would like to begin by discussing the importance of reauthorizing the surface transportation bill. It has been a long time since we had a bill; since 2005, in fact. I cannot overemphasize the importance of completing this bill as soon as possible, not only to rebuild our Nation's infrastructure but for the desperately needed jobs it will create.
Transportation projects are a natural economic development tool. The Department of Transportation has indicated for every $1 billion invested in transportation, it creates 42,000 permanent jobs and $2.1 billion in economic activity. It also saves the lives of 1,400 people. You can't argue with those numbers.
Transportation funding is a win/win for everyone involved. States get to improve their transportation infrastructure, which creates economic development, puts people back to work, enhances safety, and improves local communities.
Yet in delaying the passage of this much-needed legislation any further, we are doing a disservice to the driving population, and the Nation as a whole. The States who are battling red ink want to see this bill passed. The construction companies who are laying off employees want to see this bill passed. And the citizens waiting in traffic jams, like my constituents on the I-4 corridor in central Florida, want to see this bill passed. If this Congress fails to pass a real transportation funding bill, our Nation's transportation infrastructure, and the citizens who use it, will suffer for years to come.
There are numerous studies that have come out in the last few months documenting the current state of affairs. The American Society of Civil Engineers has found that this country's infrastructure ranked ``D''--
barely passing, certainly not acceptable for a superpower like the United States.
So we need to really pass this bill and really pass a full 6-year reauthorization bill so the States can plan and the communities can plan for their transportation needs.
I have to take a moment to talk about high-speed rail because come Friday--it is a very sad state of affairs for the people of Florida. The Governor of Florida, Rick Scott, has indicated that he is going to turn down $2.5 billion for Federal high-speed rail funding. That is very sad for the people of Florida because we have worked for a number of years across the aisle. Mr. Mica and I have worked. And, in fact, when I was first elected, for every dollar we sent to Washington, we were receiving 77 cents in Florida transportation dollars. I worked to change that formula, and now we get 92 cents, and that is $5 billion.
Well, for once Florida has an opportunity to get some of their gasoline tax dollars back and to put Floridians to work. We have 12 percent unemployment. With the 90 percent funding from the Federal Government and the 10 percent private, that would generate over 60,000 jobs. But it is so sad, and it is really a no-brainer for the Governor. He indicated he spent over $100 million to be the Governor of the State of Florida, and he indicated that he wanted to put Floridians to work.
Well, Mr. Governor, how are you going to put them to work? What are you going to work them on besides talk? What really puts people to work is transportation and infrastructure, and it is a no-brainer, the high-
speed rail project. The communities have worked on it. In fact, in 1980 Bob Graham, being the Governor, appointed me to a committee to work on high-speed rail. Let me just say, when there is no vision, the people perish.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
And I would also take this opportunity, if she would yield to me, to ask her a question.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. The previous SAFETEA-LU measure provided some funding for a high-speed rail corridor. This particular provision does not. Am I correct that if we were to do the high-speed rail project, that the lowest estimate is it would provide 30,000 jobs?
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Sir, that is the lowest; but it would provide 60,000 jobs because you're not just looking at the construction, but everywhere you build a station is economic development, and it is jobs.
Let me say, this is public-private. In other words, we would be contracting the jobs out. Companies, private companies, would be building these stations. In fact, over eight different companies have indicated that they want to be partners with this. It is sort of the way we build airports. The Federal Government goes in and puts the major infrastructure down, and then there are private operators.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
{time} 1400
Ms. BROWN of Florida. All I've got to say is that I have been elected for 30 years and this is in my opinion the worst politics I have ever seen. The Bible says, ``Without vision, the people perish.'' The people of Florida are going to suffer. We have a roughly 12 percent unemployment rate. That's over 2 million people that's unemployed. This is an opportunity to put 60,000 people to work. That translates not just in jobs, but if you have a job, you can pay your mortgage until the foreclosure goes down. It goes on and on. I want to thank the President, the Vice President, the mayors and all of the communities who have worked together for this project.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I enjoy my colleagues coming to the floor and talking about us being without a vision and that the people will perish. People are perishing all across our country because of the excessive spending that this administration and the previous two Congresses have placed upon the people. Excessive debt. This year, the President has estimated we will have a $1.650 trillion debt. And as best I can tell you, some sense of reality and dose of discipline must be invoked upon this Congress. That's what we're attempting to do not only by this bill today but by also following regular order, by allowing Members of Congress to come and speak very clearly on the floor, by allowing an open process, things which were never allowed in the previous two Congresses.
I appreciate Members coming to the floor and talking about what's in the best interests of the country. Madam Speaker, the bottom line is that the Republican majority is going to do something about jobs. We're going to do something about spending. We will bring discipline, authority, responsibility and actions directly to the floor of the House of Representatives as opposed to spending which was out of control, ideas which ran amok, and a lack of vision and clarity for our future. I'm very proud of what we're doing here today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, when the gentlewoman from Florida was speaking about the light rail program that may expire on Friday, and I am hopeful that our Governor will understand that, a retort came from my friend from Texas about her saying about a lack of vision is what causes these kinds of matters. The gentlewoman from Florida was talking about light rail. I don't recall my friend from Texas being upset when we did light rail in Houston, and I was for that. I might add all of us know that we need to move people as best we can in other methodologies, as I have described earlier.
Madam Speaker, Democrats and Republicans must work together to invest more in our Nation's aging transportation infrastructure network; invest more, not less. We have a vision for America's future transportation infrastructure. Now we need the leadership to make it a reality. I shudder to think what would have happened to this Nation's overall national security had Dwight Eisenhower not had the vision and those Congresspersons who were here and the American people did not agree that we would have an interstate highway system. I understand that it takes money to do these things.
Let's look at Minnesota as an example. When the bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, tragically, lives were lost and a system that was a city's lifeblood had to be repaired. It has been repaired. But wouldn't it have been so much better, not just to avoid the tragedy, that's obvious, but could we not have as we do see in some of these situations, that these bridges need repair, these levees need repair. The Congresspersons from Louisiana were talking about the levees that were blown away during Katrina 10 years before that happened. I stand here today and talk about a levee in the Everglades that unless it's repaired, it is going to cause a disaster. You either pay me now on these things or you pay a whole lot later. We're not talking about not spending, not investing. We're talking about doing it wisely and with accountability.
While I support the underlying bill, I would like to express my disappointment at the closed process. My colleague comes down here and talks about all the Members are going to get a chance to come down here and they're going to get a chance to express their ideas. Well, there may be some Members that may have had an amendment that might innovate something or might improve our transportation system. My friend from Texas will claim that this is technically not a closed rule, and it's true that the rule did allow one--one--amendment by Chairman Mica, who wrote the underlying bill that I support. You heard that correctly. The only Member who is allowed to offer an amendment is the same Member who wrote the bill.
On January 5, the distinguished Speaker of this House for whom I have great respect, and he is a friend of mine, stated the following:
``Above all else, we will welcome the battle of ideas, encourage it, and engage in it--openly, honestly, and respectfully. As the Chamber closest to the people, the House works best when it is allowed to work its will.''
My colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) offered a motion for an open rule, so these important matters could be debated openly on the House floor. But this amendment was defeated last night, or yesterday, in a party-line vote. In addition, I also made a motion to amend the rule and make in order an amendment by Delegate Holmes Norton of Washington, D.C. and cosponsored by Mr. Moran of Virginia which would simply have permitted the District of Columbia to spend its own money after March 4--in other words, this coming Friday--in the event of a government shutdown. That was defeated on a party-line vote.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, does this sound like an open process to you? I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and instead pass this much-needed extension through a truly open process that allows all Members to offer amendments.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I will say that this process that we have had as opposed to having it just mixed in a resolution allows for a motion to recommit for the gentleman and his party, and it is my hope that they will take up that open process that we talked about where we'll see what their ideas are. In a few minutes we'll find out when they make that choice.
Madam Speaker, we've heard a lot of things during this debate, up to and including about thoughts and ideas about shutting down the government, that that looms ahead of us. Not one Republican, not one Republican, is talking about shutting down the government. It is an issue that Republican leadership, including the gentleman Mr. Boehner, the Speaker of this House, has openly talked about that we will do every single thing that we can do to avoid a government shutdown.
So it's my hope that this body would recognize, we're not offering that as a threat to the American people. We're open for doing business. We're trying to make sure we not only address this issue weeks ahead of time but that we're forthright about how we would go about giving options, opportunities, how we would work with the President and the Senate to make sure that we avoid this from happening.
Secondly, we heard about a vision statement, a vision statement that evidently is lacking now from Republicans. Well, the facts of the case are very simple and, that is, the vision that our country sees ahead right now is diminishment of jobs, of a free enterprise system that is overburdened by rules and regulations, a policy that comes from this administration that is about destroying jobs, whether it be from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission or, government-wide, an assault on the free enterprise system and upon employers.
{time} 1410
So what we are trying to do is to offer some reassurance today that we will go ahead and reauthorize the Surface Transportation bill and that there will be the understanding that the gentleman--the fabulous chairman of the committee, John Mica from Florida--will, in fact, lead in a bipartisan effort with Ranking Member Rahall to provide the opportunity to make sure that there is public involvement, that open hearings are held, that we in committee talk about this, and that every Member is given a chance to participate.
That is what Republicans are now willing to do: regular order, open processes, and a chance to make sure, as they find their way here to the floor, that every single bill we want, where possible, allows for a Democrat motion to recommit.
Madam Speaker, you heard me say earlier today that my Republican colleagues and I are committed to an open process and to far, far more accountability, transparency, and an open process than what our friends have ever allowed us for the last 4 years.
Today's legislation is a step in the right direction. The underlying bill has bipartisan support, even up at the Rules Committee, where Republicans and Democrats support this underlying legislation. It went through regular order, which is a structure which worked, and open debate on the floor. This is just the first step in the necessary transportation funding--an open dialogue with the American people, cities, States, counties--and it is essential that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee takes the time to review where it is and to come up with the recommendations in allowing for a future that will be even brighter and better.
Allowing this funding gives the States the tools that they need. We are working, as Chairman Mica is, with counties, cities, States, and with elected officials all across the country. The hard work that he is doing pays off again today. I will predict that we will pass this rule and this bill on a bipartisan basis because of the way our Speaker, John Boehner, our majority leader, Eric Cantor, and also the great chairman, John Mica, insist on making sure that the floor is run with openness for the body. I look forward to working with Chairman Mica and the rest of the committee on that endeavor.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam 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, this 15-
minute vote on adopting House Resolution 128 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on ordering the previous question on House Resolution 129; and adopting House Resolution 129, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 256, nays 169, not voting 7, as follows:
YEAS--256
AdamsAderholtAkinAlexanderAltmireAmashAustriaBachmannBachusBarlettaBartlettBarton (TX)Bass (NH)BenishekBergBiggertBilbrayBilirakisBishop (UT)BlackBlackburnBonnerBono MackBorenBoustanyBrady (TX)BrooksBroun (GA)BuchananBucshonBuerkleBurgessBurton (IN)CalvertCampCampbellCansecoCantorCapitoCarterCassidyChabotChaffetzChandlerCobleCoffman (CO)ColeConawayCravaackCrawfordCrenshawCuellarCulbersonDavis (KY)DeFazioDenhamDentDesJarlaisDiaz-BalartDoldDonnelly (IN)DreierDuffyDuncan (SC)Duncan (TN)EllisonEllmersEmersonFarentholdFincherFitzpatrickFlakeFleischmannFlemingFloresForbesFortenberryFoxxFranks (AZ)FrelinghuysenGalleglyGardnerGarrettGerlachGibbsGibsonGingrey (GA)GohmertGoodlatteGosarGowdyGrangerGraves (GA)Graves (MO)Griffin (AR)Griffith (VA)GrimmGuintaGuthrieHallHarperHarrisHartzlerHastings (WA)HayworthHeckHellerHensarlingHergerHerrera BeutlerHuelskampHuizenga (MI)HultgrenHunterHurtIssaJenkinsJohnson (IL)Johnson (OH)Johnson, SamJonesJordanKellyKing (IA)King (NY)KingstonKinzinger (IL)KissellKlineLabradorLambornLanceLandryLankfordLathamLaTouretteLattaLewis (CA)LoBiondoLongLucasLuetkemeyerLummisLungren, Daniel E.MackManzulloMarchantMarinoMathesonMcCarthy (CA)McCaulMcClintockMcCotterMcHenryMcIntyreMcKeonMcKinleyMcMorris RodgersMeehanMicaMiller (FL)Miller (MI)Miller, GaryMulvaneyMurphy (CT)Murphy (PA)MyrickNeugebauerNoemNugentNunesNunneleeOlsonPalazzoPaulPaulsenPearcePencePetersPetersonPetriPittsPlattsPoe (TX)PompeoPoseyPrice (GA)QuayleReedRehbergReichertRenacciRibbleRichardsonRigellRiveraRobyRoe (TN)Rogers (AL)Rogers (KY)Rogers (MI)RohrabacherRokitaRooneyRos-LehtinenRoskamRoss (AR)Ross (FL)RoyceRunyanRyan (WI)ScaliseSchillingSchmidtSchockSchraderSchwartzSchweikertScott (SC)Scott, AustinSensenbrennerSessionsShimkusShulerShusterSmith (NE)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)SoutherlandStearnsStiversStutzmanSullivanTerryThompson (PA)ThornberryTiberiTiptonTurnerUptonWalbergWaldenWalsh (IL)WebsterWestWestmorelandWhitfieldWilson (SC)WittmanWolfWomackWoodallYoderYoung (AK)Young (FL)Young (IN)
NAYS--169
AckermanAndrewsBacaBaldwinBarrowBass (CA)BecerraBerkleyBermanBishop (GA)Bishop (NY)BlumenauerBoswellBrady (PA)Braley (IA)Brown (FL)ButterfieldCappsCapuanoCardozaCarnahanCarson (IN)Castor (FL)ChuCicillineClarke (MI)Clarke (NY)ClayCleaverClyburnCohenConnolly (VA)ConyersCooperCostaCostelloCourtneyCritzCrowleyCummingsDavis (CA)Davis (IL)DeGetteDeLauroDeutchDicksDingellDoggettDoyleEdwardsEngelEshooFarrFattahFilnerFrank (MA)FudgeGaramendiGonzalezGreen, AlGreen, GeneGrijalvaGutierrez HanabusaHastings (FL)HeinrichHigginsHimesHincheyHironoHoldenHoltHoyerInsleeIsraelJackson (IL)Jackson Lee (TX)Johnson (GA)Johnson, E. B.KapturKeatingKildeeKindKucinichLangevinLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)Lee (CA)LevinLewis (GA)LipinskiLoebsackLofgren, ZoeLoweyLujanLynchMaloneyMarkeyMatsuiMcCarthy (NY)McCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcNerneyMeeksMichaudMiller (NC)Miller, GeorgeMooreMoranNadlerNapolitanoNealOlverOwensPallonePascrellPastor (AZ)PaynePerlmutterPingree (ME)PolisPrice (NC)QuigleyRahallRangelReyesRichmondRothman (NJ)Roybal-AllardRuppersbergerRushRyan (OH)Sanchez, Linda T.Sanchez, LorettaSarbanesSchakowskySchiffScott (VA)Scott, DavidSerranoSewellShermanSiresSlaughterSmith (WA)SpeierStarkSuttonThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)TierneyTonkoTownsTsongasVan HollenVelazquezViscloskyWalz (MN)Wasserman SchultzWatersWattWaxmanWeinerWelchWilson (FL)WoolseyWuYarmuth
NOT VOTING--7
CarneyGiffordsHannaHinojosaHondaPelosiSimpson
{time} 1437
Messrs. OWENS, FRANK of Massachusetts, and GUTIERREZ changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. DeFAZIO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. CARNEY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 155, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, on March 2, 2011, I inadvertently voted
``yea'' on rollcall No. 155. I intended to vote ``no.''
____________________
Alerts Sign-up