delay, delay, delay, kick the can down the road, kick the can down the road. what makes this situation, i understand my friend from florida, unique as compared to previous years, is we actually have a bipartisan bill that has passed one of the chambers. a bipartisan bill in the senate that passed overwhelmingly, 74-22. authored by barbara boxer and jim inhofe, two polar opposites of the political spectrum, they could come together. they came together and put the american people first. they put jobs first. . yet here we are still, you know, fighting over the most ridiculous things and bringing the most inconsequential piece of legislation to the floor when we should be focus on passing bills like this. now, i'm told we need to do this because we're going on another recess. god forbid we stay here and

actually work on something that will be meaningful for the american people. this bill is so important to our economy that quite frankly it's worth us staying here a few extra days and getting this thing done. instead we are going to kick the can down the road for 90 days. next week nothing will be done. we'll come back and then what? then what will happen? i mean, essentially what we're doing here is we're telling the american people that we're not putting them first, we're not putting jobs first. for the life of me i can't understand why this congress, this leadership which claims to be open won't even give us a vote. we can't even get a vote on the senate bill. if you want to vote against the senate two-year extension and vote instead for your 90-day extension, fine. you know, but let us have an opportunity to vote on something that will mean something to our communities, that will put people back to work. why are you denying us this vote?

i mean, i have yet to hear anybody say why we can't have a vote on this. we had no amendments debated on this house floor on the transportation bill. we ought to have this debated, and i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question. so a little democracy can happen here. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from massachusetts has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: thank you, mr. speaker. the situation we find ourselves in is certainly not ideal. i've been a strong proponent of a long-term re-authorization of federal transportation programs. recently re-authorizations haven't been that long term, but that's more often than not also. the goal everyone is seeking is a long-term re-authorization. and i hear that the necessity of it from all transportation officials all over the country, including my own state and in my own district. without the ability to plan over the course of several years, not three month, not 17

months, that lack of certainty of in-- has increased the operating costs. it increases costs, uncertainty and that is a need for critical infrastructure. we don't have a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on a viable long-term re-authorization yet. but the passage of this brief extension gives us the opportunity to once again bring both sides to the table to try to work out a collaborative effort, a collaborative solution to this problem, and i think that's what the american people want. it's our spoublet to make sure that happens, and this -- it's our responsibility to make sure that happens and this is the last opportunity for the current legislation expires at midnight on saturday. i ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor on the rule. thoip all those in favor of

significant -- the speaker pro tempore: all those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? depovegove i do. i ask for -- mr. mcgovern: i do. i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen. the yeas and nays are ordered. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 233.

the nays are 179. the previous question is ordered. the question is on --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 237. the nays are 178. the previous question is ordered the question is on adoption of the rule. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. mica: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r.

4281. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. mica: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 600, i call up the bill h.r. 4281 to provide an extension of federal aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of a highway trust fund fending enactment of a multiyear law re-authorizing such programs and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4281, a bill to provide an extension of federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funding out of the highway trust fund pending enactment of a multiyear law re-authorizing such program. .

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida, mr. mica, and the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: mr. speaker, first, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mica: thank you so much, mr. speaker. and i first have a unanimous consent request that i ask unanimous consent that the exchange of letters between the committee on transportation and infrastructure and the committee on ways and means be included in the congressional record. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? seeing none, so ordered. mr. mica: thank you. again, yielding myself time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mica: mr. speaker and my colleagues, we know why we are here. we are here to pass a responsible extension so that people across america can go to work, that we can finish a long-term transportation bill and that we can be responsible stewards of the trust which the taxpayers and the citizens of

america sent us here for. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, the pending legislation before this body today at the 11th hour as a result of a torturous process -- excuse me -- it's not been a process at all, but rather a series of stalled starts, retreats and the failure by the republican leadership to seize upon a reasonable solution to re-authorizing our nation's transportation surface programs. at first, the speaker stated this was a jobs bill. almost as seen soon as the words were out of his mouth he countered himself saying it has nothing to do with jobs at all. what came about then was a scheme to produce a five-year

re-authorization bill coupled with that universal house republican answer to all ills which is to open up anwr to drilling, drill, baby, drill, and then attempt to pay for some of the proposal on the backs of working class americans. the surface transportation portion, h.r. 7, proposed to slash $15.8 billion in highway funding to the states, destroying 550,000 american family wage jobs over the coming years. investment in roads, highways and bridges would retrench in all but five states. the republican leadership also proposed to ship public transit revenue to highways and then bail out transit with a one-time transfer of $40 billion from the general fund while robbing middle-class americans to pay for this shuffle. this is an idea that would make even the most hardened con artists green with envy.

it is a shell game. it's a shell game but it has no place in the hallowed halls of congress. it is a shell game and it is a sham. but it was not democrats who took this ill-advised proposal down. it was republicans. over the course of six weeks, they caucused, they corraled and they contorted themselves in trying to obtain 218 votes to pass h.r. 7 and they could not which brings us to this week when the republican leadership decided to bring up a 90-day extension bill in the form of h.r. 4239. but when this legislation was called up on tuesday, it was done so as a 60-day extension. the house debated this measure. i asked for a vote and the vote was postponed. as far as i know, that request for a vote is still pending, even as we debate a different

bill now. then another curious thing happened. according to the publication transportation weekly yesterday, and i quote, after more discussion among themselves, republican leaders ordered mica to reintroduce the 60-day version of his extension as a stand-alone bill which can then be considered by the rules committee, end quote. that bill is h.r. 4276. the transportation weekly article yesterday then noted, and i quoted again, after still more discussion among themselves, republican leaders ordered mica to reintroduce the 90-day version as a stand-alone version which can be considered by the rules committee as well, end quote. confused? anybody confused? that bill is now h.r. 4281 which we are currently de

bating. who knows what we'll be debating next hour. the republican leadership could have scheduled the bipartisan noncontroversial senate-passed bill for consideration by this body. could have been brought up at any time by the speaker, passed by this body in a bipartisan fashion, signed into law. i make these points to illustrate the fast and loose means by which the republican leadership has been dealing with an extremely serious matter. instead of spinning their wheels in pursuit of ill-conceived h.r. 7, which slashes investments in federal aid to highways by $15.8 billion from current levels at a time when more spending is needed to address structurally deficient bridges and maintain our highway system, reduces highway funding to all but five states, h.r. 7 guts america's commitment to transit with sleight of hand move, instead

proposes to fund transit with general revenue fund which is offset on the backs of workers. h.r. 7 contains a bogus pay-for by linking up opening anwr and changes oil and gas leasing which -- and h.r. 7 has an inclusion of a buy america light requirement. it does not include amtrak and the federal railroad loan program while trying to crack down on d.o.t.'s waiver authority. it places a road block by elimiting and in some cases outright waiving nepa. and h.r. 7 eliminates osha protections for hazmat workers and allows bad actors to continue to receive hazmat compliant exemptions. so this body could have considered and passed the other body's bipartisan bill which

passed that body by a vote of 74-22. that's half of the republican members in the other body, and we know how difficult it is to get that other body to get 60 votes to cut off debate on any resolution or any bill, even one saying i love mother would be hard to pass in that body. yet, for a transportation bill, they came up with 72 votes. that bill continues current funding levels, sustaining approximately 1.9 million jobs. the states will receive $3.8 billion more in highway construction funding than h.r. 7 over the course of two years. the senate bipartisan bill eliminates many of the gaping loopholes in current law buy american requirements, and the senate bipartisan bill does not contain poison pills like h.r.

7 such as provisions to strip osha requirements for hazmat workers and efforts to finance highway constructions on the back of middle class workers. i would note, mr. speaker, that we have tried, we have tried by every means available to us on this side of the aisle to have the senate-passed bill brought up for consideration in the house and not just through procedural motions. yesterday, representatives defazio, corrine brown, tip bishop and myself submitted that measure to the rules committee asking them to make it in order as an amendment to the pending measure so we could vote on it today. we were denied, instead, we are on the floor today with the republican leadership proposal to kick the can down the road for another 90 days so they can convince their conference to support something they have not been able to do over the last six weeks. the fact of the matter is we need to be investing more. we need to be investing more,

not less. if we are to keep pace with china, india and our other international competitors. today, china spends 9% of its g.d.p. per year on infrastructure. india spends 5%. the u.s. only vests 1.9%. -- invests only 1.9%. the inability of the republican leadership to reach across party lines, the house democrats to address this bill is leaving america stuck in a ditch. putting american businesses at a disadvantage with companies around the world. in 2008, a blue ribbon commission established as a result of the last multiyear surface transportation bill reported that the federal government must invest a minimum of $62 billion a year just to maintain our nation's roads and bridges in their present, inadequate condition. this bill comes nowhere close to that. instead, it leaves america down

the opposite path. president lyndon b. johnson once said, in large measure, america's history is a history of her transportation. i say, let us seize the moment to move forward without procedural gimmicks, without partisan brinksmanship and do what is right for america, for the american worker, for america's families and for america's values. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia reserves his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 second and then two minutes i'd like to yield to the chair of the highway subcommittee. mr. speaker, my colleagues, let's just deal with the facts, and i'd ask unanimous consent that this chart or the information therein be included in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mica: the fact is that the democrats had six amendments, one month, 2.5 months, nine months, two months, when they controlled the house of representatives, the senate, by

huge majority and the white house. they couldn't even get it to committee. they could not get it to committee. these are the facts. i yield now to -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. duncan: i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. let me just say this, chairman mica has performed great leadership of the transportation and infrastructure committee and tried in every way possible to work with everybody he possibly could. his path has been made much more difficult by the rule prohibiting earmarks. as he just mentioned, the other side couldn't bring a bill out of committee and to this floor, a highway bill in the last congress when they controlled the house, the senate and the white house and still allowed earmarks. so we are in a very difficult situation at this point, and that's why we are here today asking for this 90-day extension. h.r. 4281 extends the surface transportation programs through june 30 at funding levels

consistent with the fiscal year 012 transportation appropriations bill passed in november. this extension is clean and does not add any policy provisions. without this extension the highway transit and highway safety programs are set to expire this saturday. this legislation will allow these programs to continue to operate as the spring construction season kicks off. if congress fails to pass this extension by saturday, it will cost the highway trust fund about $1 billion a week in lost revenue and put the brakes on 134,000 highway projects and 5,700 transit projects across the nation. states that seek to be reimbursed for their federal-aid highway and transit programs will not receive fund for the work they completed. it would furlough 3,500 of their employees and work on environmental permits and project approvals for new construction projects would come to a stretching halt. over 280,000 construction workers, mr. speaker, working on highway and bridge projects

today could lose their jobs if congress cannot pass this -- cannot pass this extension. this country simply cannot afford a loss of such magnitude during our tenous road to economic recovery. "time" has an article this week saying this recovery is a wimpy recovery and it's based on pint up demand. we need to pass this extension so we can work towards completing and finalizing h.r. 7, our long-term authorization reform bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee's time has expired. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i yield at this time four minutes to the gentleman from oregon, a distinguished ranking member on our subcommittee on highways and transit, mr. defazio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for four minutes. mr. defazio: this could or should be the most important job creating bill in america, investing in our nation's infrastructure, making our nation more competitive in the

international economy, more efficiently moving goods and people. the current system, a legacy of the 1950's, is falling apart. now, the republicans are telling us that this 90-day extension will be good for america. it will not be good for america because we have a better option before us, a bill passed the united states senate, bipartisan bill with 22 republican senators, half the republican senators supporting that bill which would give us more funding without creating deficit and create more jobs than their pie in the sky bill, h.r. 7, which they can't even get out of their own caucus here because their own caucus is split. there are a number of republicans who do not believe we should have a national transportation system. . think want to go back to pre-1950's. the speaker was forced to say to his caucus, we are not making the claim that spending taxpayer money on transportation projects

creates jobs. we won't make that claim. what makes this a jobs bill is it removes government barriers getting in the way of economic growth. that's not what all people engaged in rebuilding the nation's infrastructure think. they think investment equals jobs. if we do this 90-day extension the association of general contractors says that states will cut back to 50% to 40% of their planned projects because of the uncertainty created by this 90-day extension. we are going to lose half of the proposed projects this construction season, around america, tens of thousands of jobs, needed investment, because they got a bunch of bozos in their caucus who don't believe we should have a national transportation system. they are fighting among themselves. give us a vote. let us vote on the senate bill. it doesn't create deficit. it does create jobs. it does give us the investment

we need. the gentleman who spoke just before me, the gentleman from tennessee, who is a good friend, under the bill they are trying to pry out of their caucus, which the secretary of transportation called the worst transportation bill in history, by the way the secretary is a republican that served in this house for more than a decade. he says it's the worst bill ever in terms of policy and lack of investment. in the case of the gentleman from tennessee, their h.r. 7, if they could get it out of caucus, they can't, would cost his state $444 million over five years. lost investment. $444 million. that's more than 10,000 jobs lost. we have an opportunity today to take up a two-year bill, provide the certainty. not only for construction jobs, for engineering jobs, where people who manufacture construction equipment, for people with made in america requirements who construction transportation equipment. our buses, our light rail, our streetcars all the things that need building and replacing just

for the existing system, let alon beginning to have a vision of building on a 21st century system. our competitor nations around the world are doing it and they are so dispentic on their side they are arguing over whether or not the federal government should be involved in transportation. that's nuts. we settled that debate 60 years ago when dwight david eisenhower said this doesn't work. we have states building turn pikes that end in farmer's fields because the adjoining states couldn't afford to build their section of the turnpike. he said we need a coordinated national transportation policy. we have an opportunity to improve on the one we have today by passing the senate bill that does do some streamlining. it does do things that will help us spend the money more efficiently. and it maintains current levels of spending instead of reductions and it does not have the uncertainty of a 90-day bill that will cost us half, half of the proposed projects this construction season. give us that chance. let us have that vote. what are you afraid of?

you afraid it might pass? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. mica: first of all, mr. speaker, i don't think it's appropriate that members of my conference be referred to as bozos. i think that we have dedicated americans, ladies and gentlemen, who serve this country in the congress well. the gentleman who just spoke, on september 23, 2009, said don't play politics with investments in our infrastructure. don't pay politics with the economy. don't play politics with people's jobs. don't bring america to a screeching halt. on october 1 and walk away from our obligation to extend this program. also, mr. speaker, yielding myself 15 additional seconds that this was an attempt by the other side when they controlled the house in huge numbers, they

could not pass that extension nor could they pass, i'm told, any extension freestanding. i yield back the balance -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves his time of the the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: i still agree with that quote. we shouldn't play politics. it's never been a partisan issue. you have made it into a partisan issue. that quote was when you were opposing a 90 dash day extension. i was saying don't play politics by opposing a 90 dash day extension at that point in time. we are too far down the road and we didn't have an alternative then. we have an alternative now. pass the senate bill. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind members to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i'm honored to yield two minutes to the distinguished ranking member on the house education and work force committee, the gentleman from california, mr. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. miller: mr. speaker, americans all over the country know that our economy is improving, that the unemployed number is coming down, people are finding jobs. small businesses are doing better, but it's a very fragile recovery, this infrastructure bill that is waiting in the senate, that was passed 74-22, is key to continuing the economic growth going in this country for businesses, for families, for people seeking jobs that have been laid off for a very long time. but now what we see here today is the conscious decision, because rather than give the obama administration and president obama any help with the continuing growth in the economy, which these jobs would mean if we had a long-term ex tension of the highway bill, for all across america they have decided that they'll do a short-term extension. this is a party that's complained about uncertainty in

the economy, uncertainty in the business community. with a 90 dash day extension, cities, counties, and state governments are going to have to rethink what they contract for. with a 90 dash day extension -- 90-day extension, then we'll need another 90 days. this construction season will be gone for equipment manufacturers, for engineers, for construction workers, all across the country. in our local communities that are in desperate need of infrastructure improvement. but they have made a decision that they are going to fight president obama with the jobs that belong to middle class americans all across the country. jobs that people need today to feed their families. they have made a decision, inject uncertainty. those contracts, those jobs won't be let. and that will somehow be a victory for the republicans in the house, but it will be a disaster for american families, for american workers, and for american businesses. this kind of cold-blooded

political calculation to use the jobs of american working people as political cannon fodder for your agenda to defeat the obama administration is outrageous. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from california has expired. mr. miller: when you -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: and their family income and economic growth in our community -- the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from california -- the time of the gentleman from california has expired. mr. miller: this is a critical issue. for the american people. their families, their livelihood. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is no longer recognized. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. rahall: i yield another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. mica: --

mr. rahall: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. mica: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield at this time to the chair of the rail subcommittee, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. speaker. i wish the gentleman from california would have showed that kind of passion when the stimulus bill was passed two years ago and come to the floor and said that stimulus bill should be a infrastructure bill. and there's only a very, very small portion, i think about $68 billion of that $800 billion stimulus package, that went to the infrastructure of this country. where was the gentleman when that outrage was happening? if you want a real stimulation, which we believe this stimulates the economy, this helps put concrete on the roads and repairs our bridges and puts people to work, this bill will

do that. an 18-month bill is not going to put any kind of certainty out there. i correct myself, it will create certainty, the certainty is that it will bankrupt the trust fund. in less than two years. our bill that we have been trying to pass here, a five-year bill, that's what the people back in the states want. the gentleman from oregon, i'm surprised who's been a long-time member of the committee knows that a long-term transportation bill is better for the states. it's better for the folks that build roads and employ people and that's what we need here. that's what we are trying to get a. -- get at. i will not yield. i not the gentleman has plenty of time. he can respond on his time. this is a clean extension. it gives us the time to work a five-year bill which as i said members on the transportation infrastructure committee know that a five-year bill is something that would put

certainty out there to the folks in the states, the folks that are going to buy trucks, they are going to hire people, expand their businesses to build and rebuild these bridges and roads throughout the country. it doesn't make any sense to do an 18-month extension is basically what the senate does and along the way bankrupting the trust fund. our bill, five-year bill has significant reforms in it. would the gentleman yield 30 seconds? mr. mica: 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: has significant reforms in it that will shorten the time frame to build a highway. we all sit around here and talk about streamlining government. that's what this bill does. eliminating the departments, consolidating departments in the transportation and shortening the time line from 14 to 15 years to seven to eight years. it's tough to quantify the savings we all know time is money. all of us have seen these projects go on year after year. they balloon, cost overruns. this bill is going to solve a lot of those problems. we need to pass the 90 dash day extension to be able to continue

work on a real solution to our infrastructure. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i would remind the gentleman from pennsylvania the bill he is promoting h.r. 7, his home state of pennsylvania, a cut of $948 million. it destroys some 32,983 good-paying jobs. for fiscal year 2016, for the state of pennsylvania, the level of funding will be less than that for fiscal year 2004. that's what h.r. 7 would mean to the gentleman's home state of pennsylvania. he would not yield to me i will not yield to you. i'm proud to yield three minutes to the gentleman from missouri, a valued member of our committee, mr. carnahan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for three minutes. mr. carnahan: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong opposition to yet another lame, shortsighted extension of our surface transportation system. and thank nick rahall and peter defazio for their staunch

support of a real transportation jobs bill. this kick the can down the road extension fails, it fails to make progress rebuilding america just at the time when our construction season is starting off this year. our states, our local governments need certainty to invest, to plan, to build america's infrastructure. and this night, yes ninth short-term extension only extends uncertainty this congress has repeatedly created. in a bipartisan fashion, by a vote of 74-22, rare in the senate these days, they passed a responsible two-year, two million jobs bill that is a better path for the american people and the economy. this includes an estimated 36,500 jobs in my home state of missouri. the construction sector, especially our building trades, have been particularly hard hit

by this recession with 1.9 million jobs lost at the depth of the recession. currently there are 1.4 million unemployed construction workers. let's put them back to work. i sit on the transportation committee where six weeks ago the republican majority passed out a completely partisan transportation bill for the first time in history. their bill would kill over half a million jobs and cut investment in 45 states and the district of columbia and was dead on arrival in this house. so it's no surprise that here six weeks later we have not seen any action on the floor because there's no support for their job-killing proposal. and now we are delaying again with yet another extension instead of taking up a true commow mize -- compromise passed by our colleagues in the senate. i'm proud to be an original co-sponsor when the senate bill was introduced in the house, h.r. 14. it's time the house take up that bill, that bipartisan bill. let's pass it.

let's send it to the president. infrastructure is a national and urgent priority. and this body needs to start treating it that way. infrastructure is one of the few areas where virtually everyone except the isolated and out-of-touch republican majority agrees on what we need to do. from the chamber of commerce to the afl-cio to everyone's transportation leaders back home , let's pass this let's pass this bill and send it to the president's desk before it expires. our building trades are yearning for this, are yearning to go back to work. i call on my colleagues to reject another short-term extension, pass h.r. 13, to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.

the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expire. mr. mica: i yield two mines -- minutes to mr. shuster. mr. shuster: are we going to spend less? yes. but i believe by streamlining we'll create more jobs. >> what are you waiting for? bring it up then. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, a valued member of our committee and the upon sor of h.r. 14, the every other body's nonpartisan, bipartisan transportation bill, which is twice as good as h r. 7. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. our republican colleagues are telling us we should forget about the 15 months since they

crafted the highway bill. mr. bishop: they're telling us to forget about the last 16 weeks during which time their bill imploded and the bipartisan map 21 bill passed the senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. now they're telling the american people they need three additional months to find the money an shape a policy, an effort that thus far has elieu them, that can garner the votes in the house and be signed by the president of the united states. it gets better. on the very same day that they make this outrageous argument, they will vote for a republican budget that slashes investment in transportation infrastructure by 46%. 46%. 46% reduction in transportation and infrastructure. if they're serious about this vote, if they're serious about seing this destructive level of funding enacted into law, how can we take them seriously when

they talk about a five-year bill. they talk about certainty, how can we give the american people or the construction industry or the construction workers certainty when they say, give us 90 more days an we'll craft a five-year bill, but in the meantime we'll cut spend big 40%. no reasonable person can take that seriously. to make that worse, at the end of today, we'll adjourn the house for two weeks. we're asking for a 90-day extension, and then for two weeks we're going to go home. this while construction workers are wondering where their next paycheck is coming from and how they're going to feed the families. if republicans want 09 more days, we should stay here and work through the bipartisan senate bill as the basis for these discussions. we know we can get it through the senate.

i'm confident if republicans are released by their leadership to vote for it, they'll vote for it here in the house. let's pass h.r. 14. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. mr. mica: continuing to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: may i have a time check, please, madam speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia has nine minutes. the gentleman from florida has 23 minutes. mr. rahall: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes at this time to the distinguished gentlelady from the district of columbia, the ranking member on our economic development and public buildings subcommittee on our -- eleanor holmes norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady veck niced for two minutes. ms. norton: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the american people will be puzzled by why we can't get out of this house what has

traditionally been the most popular bill, the transportation bill, an they will hope we're not on the road to the 30-plus f.a.a. extensions that we had before. you know it won't do to say, like two kids you did it too, we did it, you can do it, therefore we can do it. none of us should have done it. but in any case we know we don't have to do it this time. the senate has passed a bill that we could pass as well. so we know the compromise can happen because they passed a bill with more than 2/3 of their own house, including many republicans signing on, compromise is possible. if you believe in compromise. and i'm afraid this bill shows that we have a majority that does not. they are on record saying that they must have 218 votes from their caucus alone. that will say to the american people if we need to pass a bill that will have only people

from our party voting for it, while the senate has passed a bill with both parties compromising, which is the party that does not believe in compromise? you always have to compromise. there's not a lot of difference in the amount of money in these bills. $52 billion per year for the house, $54 billion per year for the senate. the problem is, poison pills, the problem is not treating the transportation bill as it has always been treated, as a bipartisan bill. the problem is not caring that you are having an effect on the recovery if you pass a series of 90-day bills. western be speeding the recovery instead of hanging, clinging to a bill that would kill half a million jobs. it's time to compromise. this city -- this side is holding out its hand for

compromise, we need somebody on the other side to hold out theirs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: i'm going to continue to reserve and i will close at the appropriate time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. defazio: i want to reiterate the point i made earlier. outside of a minority of their caucus, i believe a majority of the united states house of representatives believe that federal investment using taxpayer dollars without creating deficit that federal

investment in rebuilding our national infrastructure, the 150,000 bridges in the national highway system that need substantial repair or replacement, the steel that goes into those bridges that's made in america, the workers are american workers, the engineers are american engineers. the $60 billion back log in our existing transit systems, let alone giving americans more fuel efficient transit options, $60 billion. buses made in america. light rail cars, made in america. these are manufacturing jobs. engineering jobs. high tech jobs. these are not just construction job. the construction industry itself is devastated with double digit unemployment. and passing this 90-day extension, according to the association of general contractors a very republican-leaning organization, 80% of their political contributions go to the republicans, so they are not partisan, they say it is going to mean the states will

go to 40% or 50% reductions in their project this is summer because they are not assured beyond that 90 tais that they're going to get their federal reimbursements, and many states, unlike this body and unlike the federal government, have constitutional balanced budget requirements. something we should have nationally. that's a debate for another day. but the point is that this temporary extension just cost us jobs and the bill we'll vote on later today, the ryan budget, would reduce transportation investments by 56% from current levels, which aren't even dealing with the already deteriorated infrastructure and not putting people back to work. so there's kind of a mixed message on their side. they say do 90 days and then we'll doe h.r. 7. h.r. 7 will reduce spending and cost half a million jobs. mr. hay ray hall: i yield the

gentleman another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: i spend big 56% on transportation. that is mind-boggling in the face of what confronts our nation, the challenges around the world, the need for jobs. there are people on the other side of the jobs that say the government can't create jobs. they're hung up on the semantic thing. the government isn't creating the job the government is investing taxpayer dollars, without por rowing, to let out private contracts to lowest and best bidders to build these projects with all products made in america, the strongest made in america requirement. so you can't tell me those things don't create jobs. those are investments, they create squobs. consumption, tax cuts, doesn't create jobs. they want more tax cuts instead of investment in america. that is so wrong. let us vote on the bipartisan senate bill. if 22 republican senators can support ha thill -- -- support

that bill which would give us two years of stability, we ought to have a chance to vote on it in this house. the speaker pro tempore: who yields time. mr. mica: continuing to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. connolly: i thank my friend from west virginia. madam speaker, america's commuters an businesses want us to speed up transportation improvements. however the house republicans have offered only a speed bump. we face a transportation crisis with bridges and roadways crumbling, millions of americans struck in gridlock and transit improvements languishing. we've known the transportation lapses on march p 1, severely jeopardizing projects and jobs in every one of our states. this is nothing more than a three-month band-aid. the republican plan was rejected on a bipartisan basis because it disinvests in america, cutting $361 million

in my state of virginia alone. america needs a real transportation plan a plan that ep sures its states an localities don't shut project this is sunday, a plan that creates jobs, putting the hard-hit construction strbak to work. thankfully, there is such a plan, it's bipartisan. this month the senate passed it. a two-year transportation plan on a vote of 74-22. including half of the republicans present. i urge republican leadership to bring forward the bipartisan senate bill. it's time to get america moving again. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- mr. mica: continuing to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. rahall: i'm honored to yield the cust mir one minute to the democratic leader of the house of representatives, the gentlelady from california, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the minority leader is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for

yielding and i thank him for his tireless efforts on behalf of america's workers. for his attempts to bring to the floor a bipartisan transportation bill as has been the custom in our house. and as we do have the opportunity to do by taking up the senate bill. the bill in the senate has bipartisan support, 74 plus one who was absent, but supporting the bill, 75 members of the senate support that legislation, it is bipartisan, it creates jobs, and it should be -- it is worthy of our support. it has the co-sponsorship of the chair and ranking member of the committee from chairwoman barbara boxer to ranking member senator inhofe, a wide array of philosophical thinking, all of it coming together around a bipartisan initiative. the american people have a right to know why the

republicans in the senate, the democrats in the senate, the president of the united states, the house democrats, all support this bipartisan bill, why the republicans in the house are odd man out. it calls to mind when they were odd person out on the payroll tax cut in december, when all the other parties had come together in a bipartisan way. but what is dangerous about what is happening here today is that this initiative, this kick the can down the road, this my way or no highway bill attitude is costing jobs, and i'm sure they have been reviewed, 41,000 in north carolina, 4,500 in illinois, 4,000 in maryland, the list goes on and on. just because of the delay an the uncertainty that is injected into the system. this costs the taxpayer more.

small businesses suffer because they cannot proceed with contracts to go -- to go forward. and it is a job loser as i menaced. this has nothing to recommend it except to be explained by the fact that the republicans can't even bring their own transportation bill to the floor and pass it. their own transportation bill is not a good bill. but at least it would take us to conference. they can't vote for their own bill. i don't know how that happens they have a bill they can't support. in addition to not being able to support their own bill, and it's interesting that the budget and transportation are on the floor at the same time, they have this bill and in the budget that they are going to be voting on today, they have cut transportation funding in half. from $90 billion to $46 billion.

that's $44 billion worth of jobs, promotion of commerce, improving the quality of life of the american people, building the infrastructure of america, and that means roads, mass transit, all of the rest of that. cut that in half. oh, by the way, give a tax break of over $300,000 to the wealthiest people in america. wealthy people get off fine. middle class people pay. small businesses pay. the taxpayer pays. job seekers and workers pay the price. so i think it's really important to understand what the bipartisan -- national governor's association has said, a string of short-term extensions will only increase uncertainty for state and local governments and the private sector. and so, again, i call the house

back to its bipartisanship on this legislation. the distinguished chairman, mr. mica, has been part of that bipartisanship in the past. now they come up with a bill that the republican secretary of transportation says is a job loser and is dangerous to public safety. the worst bill he's seen in 35 years of public service. his public service has been in this field. again, departing from bipartisanship. i urge my colleagues to not aid and abet the republicans that are going down this path. it is not a good one. but to urge them to bring up the senate bill. it can go to the president's desk today. putting people back to work immediately. i urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized.

mr. mica: continuing to reserve, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: time check please, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia has two minutes. and the gentleman from florida has 23 minutes. mr. rahall: 23? i guess it's not very popular on his side of the aisle. he doesn't seem to have many speakers coming over. i haven't noticed many members of his committee to speak in favor of this extension today. then i am prepared to close. i would take some time from the distinguished chairman if he would be willing to yield me some of his time. mr. mica: i yield him 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman would yield you 30 seconds. mr. rahall: that's about all we are getting out of h.r. 7, too. madam speaker, if the other side were serious about creating jobs, they would have worked in a bipartisan fashion in this body as the other body did to

build a bill that could pass both bodies of the congress and be signed into law. as the distinguished democratic leader has just said, everybody's onboard. except the leadership of the house of representatives on the republican side. just as this congress has done so many times before, i have been in this body over three decades, involved in every transportation bill we have done over that time. and every transportation bill we have done has been in a bipartisan fashion, passing this body by overwhelming margins. instead, today's leadership in this house has nowed -- plowed full speed ahead, writing a partisan proposal that is aimed at appealing to ideological spectrums of their party. last month the teamster general president wrote in a letter, i quote, how to eliminating osha protections for hazmat workers improve this nation's crumbling

roads and bridge. how do loopholes put hundreds of thousands of construction workers back on the job? last month in a letter addressed to the speaker of this bod i why, the president of labors international union wrote, and i quote, the house must return to the principles of sound governance and bipartisanship that has historically characterized consideration of the surface transportation act. he further noted the offsets used to pay for this bill are also irresponsible. slashing the pay and retirement security of hardworking federal and postal employees is neither human nor fair. it is an unacceptable attack on the hardworking people who provide essential services for veterans, native americans, our parks clean, and help protect us from threats both foreign and domestic. and has already been noted, one of our key business groups in this country has found that the -- that being the associated

general contractors has stated the following, the majority of the work is supposed to go out in spring and get done by the fall. instead of spending 60% or 70% of their budgets, our small businesses are going to cut back to 50% or 40% to make sure they have some cash in the fall, end quote. that comes from one of the major business groups in this country. responsible for putting people to work, responsible for getting our economy moving again. i urge that we take up the -- the bipartisan senate bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: i yield myself the balance of the time to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mica: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker and my colleagues, i think it might be time right now, madam speaker, that we call the capitol physician to come to the house floor. i think we should call the capitol physician because there appears to be on the other side a mass case of loss of memory.

i think we need to clear up just a few facts in what has been said here. we had the gentlelady from california who happened to be the speaker of the house, as i recall the other side controlled the house by a huge margin, the senate by a significant margin, at one point most of the time i think it was 60 votes where you could do anything, they controlled the white house for those two years. they could have done anything they wanted to do. president obama in fact sent secretary lahood to mr. oberstar and myself, i was the ranking republican, he was the chair, and cut the knees right out from the democrats and said, he wasn't doing any long-term bill. he was doing an 18-month bill which really sent a death signal

to transportation infrastructure projects. in fact, the other side would be in the majority probably, and i would be the ranking member if they had just done what they could have done. and then they tell you that we can't pass a bill. well, let's deal with the facts. they six times had to do extensions. not one extension was freestanding. in fact, one time they could not even pass the extension with the house, senate, and white house, in march of 2010 they had to -- they actually closed down programs. madam speaker, we may need the house physician because there is a case -- there are multiple cases of amnesia an we need to remind folks about the facts and what they forgotten. again, we are here to

responsibly pass and even in the extensions i offered first a 90 dash day extension -- 90-day extension, and i know speaker boehner talked to the senate and other leaders. no, we want to do a 60-day extension. some of the democrats felt like they were thrown under the bus. the 60-day extension that they asked us to do, they couldn't get the votes. they came down and spoke against yesterday. madam speaker, there's something wrong here. i think we really need to get the capitol physician involved because the amnesia is very, very serious on the other side. they had earmarks. the last bill was passed with 6,300 earmarks. they had earmarks. they had control. they couldn't even pass a freestanding bill and get it to committee, the full committee. so again i think the amnesia is pretty rampant on the other side.

madam speaker, i'd like to inquire as to the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 17 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. mica: mr. speaker, i yield myself one half minute to close. because i don't want this to be delayed any further because i want americans to go back to work, i will yield back the 17 seconds. 30 seconds first, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. mica: we offer here today a long-term bill that will puts people who want jobs in this country back to work. without earmarks, without tax increases. the end of an era of the biggest gorilla of walking off with the most bananas is over. we will pass responsible legislation and we will get it done. as the cable guy says, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to

git are -- git r don. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 600, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third readling. the clerk: a bill to provide an extension ever 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 re-authorizing such programs. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. rahall: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has requested -- mr. mica: yeas and nays are requested.

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

on this vote the yeas are 266. the nays are 158. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 5

the 7 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of house concurrent resolution 112. will the the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of house concurrent resolution 112 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: concurrent resolution establishing the budget for the united states government for fiscal year 2013 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2014 through 2022. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on wednesday, march 28, 2012, a request for recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in house report

112-423 by the gentleman from california, mr. honda, has been postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-423 by the gentleman from california, mr. honda, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 in the nature of a substitute printed in house report number 112-423. offered by mr. honda of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or

commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 78, the nays are 346. the amendment is not adopted.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-4123, for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number five in the nature of a substitute, prinned in house report 112-423, offered by mr. garrett of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house registration lution 597, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. garrett: i yield myself two minutes. last week, the republicans introdaused a budget that takes the first step toward avoiding the debt and decline the president and his fellow democrats have laid out for the

american people. today we build off that work and offer a plan to further cut spending an balance the budget in just five years. >> the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the members will clear the aisle. the gentleman is recognized. mr. garrett: with real spending cuts today and forceful spending cuts for tomorrow and common sense changes to strengthen our nation's safety nets, we can finally restore much-needed certainty into the economy and reopen america for business. to say that president obama an the senate democrats have failed to lead on the most predictable economic crisis in our history would be an understatement. senate democrats have not been

in a debate at all, failing to pass a budget for other 130 days and the president's attempt at a budget came a week late an adds trillions to our nation's debt. every american family understands the necessity of a balanced budget. fa i will -- families also understand that setting a budget is difficult. it requires difficult choices. with even the accounting gimmicks, our president's budget never, ever balances. this is a void in leadership and it has substantial consequences on real americans all across this country. so today, the r.n.c. budget represents a clear and practical way so our economy can begin to grow again. how do we do that? first, we repeal obamacare once and for all, next with we -- we cut discretionary spending and eliminate programs that are unconstitutional, duplicative an harmful. perhaps most importantly, we don't kick this can town the road and punt these tough

decisions. we actually save our national safety net programs that are currently going bankrupt today. with these common sense solutions and by harnessing the power of competition between private insurance plans and improving at the same time the quality of care, we put medicare on the path to long-term solvency. so what is this? it offers a real plan for the future and today i urge all the support -- to support our substitute. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from maryland is recognized, for 100%. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman rises in opposition. mr. van hollen: yesterday we debated the republican budget plan. today we have a plan that's more of the same except on steroids. as we debated yesterday, the question is not whether we should reduce the deficit or whether we should reduce the debt. of course we should.

the question is how we do it, and we should do it in a way that doesn't damage the ongoing economic recovery which this proposal does. we should do it in a way that is balanced, meaning we have shared responsibility, and the democratic alternative that we'll debate shortly has that balance. we make difficult spending cuts but we also cut a lot of the loopholes and special breaks in the tax code because if you don't do any of that to reduce the deficit, it means you got to reduce the deficit at the expense of everyone and everything else, and that unfortunately is what this budget does as well. it ends the medicare guarantee for seniors. it slashes medicaid very deeply, cutting the program to more than a third by the year 2022 where 2/3 of the funding of that program goes to seniors and nursing homes and disabled

individuals. it cuts deeply into education funding both for preschool as well as college and cuts deeply into those important investments including transportation which we were debating earlier today. in fact, their transportation proposal would cut transportation spending next year by 46% even though we have 70% unemployment in the construction industry. so this budget, like the one yesterday, makes the wrong choices for america. we can reduce our deficits and debt. let's just do it in a balanced way with shared responsibility, and with that i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from nevada, ms. berkley. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. berkley: i thank the chairman for yielding. madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to both the garrett substitute and the ryan budget. today's debate is about one

thing, priorities. should nevada seniors be the priority for the united states congress or should wall street and big oil companies be the priority? the republican budget proposal answers that question very clearly. instead of tackling nevada's record unemployment and foreclosure rates, washington republicans are instead advocating to kill medicare by turning it over to profit hungry and insurance companies. this would raise premiums for nevada seniors by up to $6,000 a year. why would republicans do this? in order to pay for more tax breaks for corporations that ship good american paying jobs overseas or to continue taxpayer giveaways to big oil companies that made a record $ 137 billion in profits last year alone? mr. speaker, these are the wrong priorities. wall street millionaires and big oil companies don't need our help. they are doing just fine, but

nevada seniors are struggling to make ends meet and putting private insurance companies in between patients and their doctors would just make things worse. i encourage all of my colleagues to join me in rejecting this plan and any plan that has the wrong priorities and tries to kill medicare by turning it over to private insurance companies whose only interest is profits and not the health and well-being of our seniors, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: yes, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from -- to the chairman -- to the chairman of the r.s.c., mr. jordan. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. jordan: i thank the speaker and thank the gentleman for yielding. i'd like to respond to two arguments that the gentleman from maryland made in his

remarks and frankly the last two days of this debate. first, he says we need a balanced approach. everyone understands when democrats make a balanced approach it means raising taxes now and you can count on this promise because it comes from politicians, we promise we'll cut speculater. i'd like to point out, if it's so important to raise taxes on the american people and on certain businesses, why in the world didn't the democrats do this just 24 months ago when they controlled all of government? in fact, they had a super -- they had a filibuster proof majority in the senate for 20 months. if it was so critical why didn't do you it then? the other argument is that our proposal that mr. garrett and his team put together, which i strongly support, somehow will hurt economic growth. someone has to tell me how getting to balance in five years and getting to pay off a $16 trillion, a debt bigger than our entire economy, bigger than our entire g.d.p.,

somebody explain to me how that will hurt economic growth. i think it will actually prevent a downgrade unlike last summer. if we adopted this budget last summer my estimate is we wouldn't get a downgrade from s&p. so i want to commend the gentleman from new jersey and his hard work and his team and i make one final point. parents make sacrifices for their kids so that when they grow up they have life better than they did. they in turn do it for their children and each generation has done it for the next until today. today for the first time in american history we have a political class who's living for the moment, spending for the moment and sending the bill to the next generation and it is wrong, it is unfair, it is immoral and the only budget that's going to get us to balance in a reasonable period of time, in a commonsense period of time that the american people understand is the budget that mr. garrett and his team have put together. so i strongly support it and urge my colleagues to vote yes. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields

back. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chairman. i yield a minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. engel: i thank my friend for yielding and rise in opposition to this budget and in opposition to the extreme republican budget. budgets are about priorities and one of the priorities of my republican friends, protect the wealthy in this country, protect big corporations, kill the seniors and hurt middle-class people. this is just nothing that makes sense. this -- their budget slashes services for the elderly, slashes pell grants, slashes education services, slashes services for those with disabilities and increases tax cuts for the wealthiest people and the wealthiest corporation s. that's the republican priority. that's the republican priority. go after medicare, go after medicaid, give increased tax breaks to wealthy people.

i don't think that's the priorities of the american people. i think the priorities of the american people are in the democratic programs. let me remind my friends on the other side of the aisle, the six years under bush, they controlled the senate and the house and the presidency and did none of this, none of this, none of getting back to basics with the budget. so the new found religion that we see on the other side, you know, please spare me. what we do see from the other side, again, is protect the wealthiest, big oil, big corporations, hurt medicare and medicaid, hurt the middle class, tax breaks for the rich. those are the republican priorities. on the democratic side we care about the average person who's struggling to make ends meet. we want to help the average person go to school. these are our priorities. which of the priorities of the american people, i think it's the democratic party's. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey.

mr. garrett: i yield to the gentleman from louisiana, a man who understands that our president has failed to lead by not presenting a balanced budget so he presents one to the r.s.c., two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. boustany: we call cut, cap and balance. and that's what's so important about this amendment, this budget that we bring forward with the r.s.c. is that number one, the most important thing we control the wasteful washington spending that's added mountains and mountains of debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren. mr. scalise: it's wrong, it's not fair to send this spending to our children and grandchildren and continue on autopilot as president obama's budget did. president obama's budget, by the way, got no vote. not one democrat voted for the president's budget. in contrast, in five years we will have a balanced budget under this amendment that's being brought forward.

so we cut spending in areas where we've been needing to finally control spending like families are controlling spending back home. when families deal with tough economic times they've already done this. they tighten their belts and they make due with what they got and they live within their means. washington fails to do it. we finally put those fiscal constraints in washington, but then we also put caps in place so that until we get to a balanced budget there's a freeze on discretionary spending so that we're able to finally get to what is ultimately a balanced federal budget in five-minute years. we go further. of course we repeal obamacare, something that's been so devastating already to so many families that lost health care they like. tax increases, by the way, which in many areas hit middle-class families real hard. we abolish that. we save medicare. president obama's budget actually escalates medicare's bankruptcy. in 12 years, this is by the way boim's -- obama's medical

actuaries. we are going to save medicare. this budget does that too. it has those reforms that chairman ryan brought forward that actually put medicare back on a sustainable growth path and then we have commonsense tax reform that actually lower overall rates. this is a great budget that's been brought forward, that's finally responsible to address our problems and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chairman. again, the reason the republican budget and this budget do things like end the medicare guarantee, do things like cut deeply into education for our kids' future, do things like cut medicaid by over $800 billion over 10 years is because they're not asking the very wealthy to share more responsibility in reducing the deficit. in fact, they double down on tax cuts. if you see from this chart, this is from the nonpartisan tax policy institute. simply by locking in the

portion of the bush tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, millionaires on average, people making over $1 million a year will get $129,000. then you heard talk about how they're going to drop the top rate from 35% to 25%, that would give people earning $1 million over $265,000 on top of that. they say they're going to do that in a deficit-neutral manner. well, to do that you have to make up $4.6 trillion in revenue loss. they are going to do it by getting rid of all those deductions. one of the ones is the mortgage interest reduction that helps middle-income people. more tax breaks at the top financed by increasing the tax burden on middle income americans and cutting important investments that help grow our economy. and with that i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for a minute and a half.

mr. moran: madam speaker, this budget proposal is a stunningly radical document because at its core is a massive redistribution of income. from the incomely disadvantaged to the wealthiest members of our society. in order to fund historic, unnecessary and unsustainable tax cuts for the rich, this republican budget would require us to nearly eliminate our ability as a government to invest in our physical and human infrastructure. in other words, it shows no faith in our nation's future. puts our future in the hands of those who can afford to live in gated communities and invest in foreign economies. in fact, more than 2/3 of the nondefense cuts and this republican plan come from programs that directly benefit low-income americans. the pathway -- is where in my children's lifetime most of the

federal government, with the exception of defense, social security and health care, would no longer have the money to function. now, what does it mean to virtually eliminate nondefense discretionary spending? that's a budgetary term, but that includes research at n.i.h., roads and public transit funding, head start, education support, f.b.i., drug enforcement, food, meat, drug inspections. no national park maintenance or environmental protection. that's what it means to virtually eliminate these functions of government. can i have another 30 seconds? mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the chair: another 30 seconds recognized. mr. moran: madam speaker, this is not a budget for america we know today. it's a budget for grover norquist america, a radical conservative fantasy land where government is no longer able to play a role, protecting those who need it the most,

protecting our most natural resources, investing in the job creation initiatives that will enable us to move forward as a people. that is not a vision that we should want to see passed into law, let alone into reality. thank you, madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. >> at this time -- mr. garrett: i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from kansas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two mississippi. >> i appreciate the hard work of my cheeg from new jersey. i rise in proud support of the budget we are discussing here today. it offers a clear vision for responsibility as well as a path toward accomplishing that vision. in just three day the united states will have the highest corporate business tax rate in the world. in a matter of months, every american, every business own eric every investor will be subject to higher taxes as a result of the expiration of the

bush-obama cacks tutt -- tax cuts. that's right, the bush-obama tax cuts will expire. this budget addresses these looming challenges by not only proposing to lower tax rates but also inlose a ticket to make them a reality with reconciliation instructions that require congress to vote before september 15 on comprehensive tax reform that will actually create jobs in america. on another note, budget vastly improves medicaid and help ours most needy. the cost of this programs -- the costs of this program are consuming our cash-strapped federal an state coffers. in many states it's not uncommon to spend more on medicaid than education. we will respect the 10th amendment and give states the freedom, flexibility and accountability they need in order to serb their citizens better at the local and state level. i urbling all my colleagues to support this budget as the answer to accomplish america's

priorities of cutting spending, keeping taxes low, creating jobs and balancing our budget in a matter of years, not decades. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland veck niced. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. make no mistake, this is actually the heart of the budget philosophy of our friends from the other side of the aisle. this is where they want to take america. remember last time, it almost passed until the leaership was horrified, seeing it was winning, and started twisting arms to have people change their votes so it would go down. it is disconnected from the real-life consequences of average americans and what america needs. there's a certain irony we just

-- there's a certain irony. we just approved a short-term extension of the transportation bill which makes it impossible to use the full construction psych until summer because the republicans would not allow a vote on the bipartisan bill that passed the senate because they were afraid it would pass and we'd have stability for two years. the ryan budget committee budget will cut transportation 46%. at a time when america's infrastructure desperately needs additional investment. and this budget doesn't even identify the depths of the cut. they shove it all into function 920 so it's disguised but it's likely 10% or more below the already-intolerable levels of the ryan budget. this is not what people are hearing from folks at home in terms of what america needs to

put people back to work, to strengthen our communities, to deal with problems of water, sewer, transportation, failing bridges and transit. it fails a fundamental test and the partnership we've had for the last 66 years of a national priority to rebuild and renew and focus on transportation infrastructure. just one more reason why we should reject both of these alternatives and support the program that has been offered by my friend from the budget committee. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from south carolina who has been a stalwart leader on the legislation before us and trying to have the u.s. live in a balanced budget. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman, i thank my colleague from new jersey for the opportunity. we can and will over the course of this day assay -- say a lot

about this budget, a lot ofed ba things about this budget. i prefer to focus on one positive thing about others. this budget actually balances. five years it takes to do that. not easy, in fact, it's very, very hard to do that. mr. mulvaney. it's -- mr. mulvaney: it's easier to borrow money. the reason we borrow money is because it's easier to dado that than go home and say, we have to make difficult decisions to balance the budget and we're afraid if we go home and tell people we need to make tough decisions, they won't send us back term, and in many people's minds coming back next term is foremost in their mind. later today we'll take up the democrat budget which also never balances. budgets that never balance raise a legitimate moral

question, a moral issue. if you borrow money with the intention of paying it back, that is debt. there's no we of -- no question. if you borrow money, intened -- intending to pay it back, that's debt. if you borrow money never intending to pay it back, that is theft. that is theft. that is what the president's budget represents. that's what the democrat budget represents. that's what so many budgets over the course of the last generations in this town have represented. we have borrowed money with no plan, no intention ever to pay it back. and too many budgets in here today will simply continue that cycle. it's wrong. it's wrong to do to our children and grandchildren. it's wrong to do for ourselves. you should never take something and not even have a plan to pay it back. say what you want to about the republican study committee budget. say what you want to later on about the republican budget mr. ryan and the committee are offering, but at least at the very end of the day, they offer

some way to pay back the money we borrowed. for those reasons alone, they merit our support. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chairwoman. we'll talk more later about the democratic alternative and how we address the deficit in a serious and credible way without doing it in a manner that provides a wind fall tax break to folks at the top at the expense of everybody else. for now i yield to the gentleman from new jersey a member of the budget committee, mr. pascrell, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pascrell: just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, it does. i've listened to these words, empty comes to my mind. how can you speak across the floor to the people on this side, imply that the president is guilty of thievery, or

theft, when from 2001 to now, here's the record. and i'll wait if you want to interject, please stand and say you're wrong. 2001, tax cuts, not paid for. 2003, tax cuts, not paid for. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. pass credit: not yet. i'm not finished, then you can interject your thoughts. don't look so startled. because what you said is startling. you didn't pay for those two tax cuts york uh didn't pay for two wars you didn't pay for the scription drug plan that you put into effect. in fact you didn't even vote for it, mr. chairman, yourself. the point of the matter is, you paid for nothing. then you're accusing us, you're accusing us on this side of the aisle of not being response -- responsible. do you know what you've done? by 2020, the portion of the

debt gets bigger because of those things that you folks did a few years ago. if you have am -- that you have amnesia about. the chair: the chair must remind members to address the -- their remarks to the chair not to others. mr. pascrell: i yield. >> i thank my friend from new jersey, for whom i have a great deal of respect, madam chairwoman. what he says is correct. what he says is absolutely and without reservation correct. what this government did in the first half of this decade was wrong. mr. mulvaney: borrowing the money as we did was wrong. to continue, madam chairwoman, is just as wrong. mr. pascrell: i take back my time, i think i've been generous about that. the only difference is, the president, who was the president in 2001, i'm glad you agree with me, came into circumstances very different

than the president who raised his hand in january of 2009, wasn't it? in 2000, we had a surplus of $5 trillion. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. >> i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. pascrell: when this president raised his hand, we were losing 750,000 jobs a year, number one, and number two, we had a deficit beyond belief, madam speaker. for us to compare you must believe in fairy tales. if you want to talk about a budget that's in balance, we can do that. but if we continue on this path and not recognizing history, we will never come to balance. let's be honest. i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california who understands that

first and foremost, washington must do what every family in the united states does, balance the budget. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam chairman, this nation is on a collision course with a sovereign debt crisis the magnitude of which we have never experienced. this is not some moonless night on the atlantic. we are spinning full speed ahead toward the iceberg of debt in the full light of day and we can all see that plainly. the house budget turns the ship just barely enough to avoid hitting that same hazard which has already wrecked greece. the r.s.c. budget turns us promptly and safely. it builds on the house budget committee's work but within the budget passed by the house last year, as adjusted by the sequester. i've heard the descriptions, it's draconian, it's radical, it's extreme. it returns us to the spending levels before the obama-pelosi

spending bing began in 2008. that might sound extreme to my friends across the aisle but i assure them, many families have been working within flat or diminished family budgets since then and they have every right to expect that their government over the next five years does what they have already been doing over the past five. work hard, waste not, and live within your means. if we were to do so, this nation cowl see a balanced budget again within five years and redeem its rightful place as the respected financial leader of the world. we know the challenge. we see the american dream at risk. and we know that we have but a fleeting moment in history to avoid the hardest times our nation has ever known. we still have a chance to place our retirement systems on a sound financial footing, arrest the debilitating spiral of debt

that threatens the very survival of our nation, and return our economy to the prosperity that is known when it has enjoyed what jefferson called a wise and frugal government. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland, let me note that the gentleman has one and three quarter minutes remain, the gentleman from new jersey has three and a half minutes. mr. van hollen: if i could inquire of the gentleman from new jersey -- i will reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: at this time i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia who has -- who has worked to bring this country within its means. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. >> these are serious time, we are hearing a lot of rhetoric here today. we've got some revisionist

history, there's a lack of recollection that in 2006 and 2007 this body was controlled by the democrats, the senate was controlled by the democrats and the president inherited a mess from the democrats that were in control of these bodies, of which he was part of. a little bit of revisionist history going on here today. mr. graves: the fact that the members on the other side can stand here and look into these cameras to the faces of the children all across this nation and not provide them a solution is appalling. every time, it is, let's push it off, let's push it off further. we have no plan to balance the budget, we have no plan to pay off the debt, but we have a balanced approach to continue down the same path. now a balanced approach, that's like straddling the fence. it gets you nowhere. at some point you're going to fall off this fence and it's going to hurt. today, we have the opportunity to reverse this trend of trillion dollar deficits and balance the budget in five years. today, we will decide whether

to stop borrowing from the future to pay for the present. this budget presents a path to the balanced budget without raising taxes. it eliminates the debt, it unlocks america's energy sources. this budget unlurebs the power and ingenuity of america's job creators and addresses the entitlement elephant that has this impending path of insolvency that lays before us. in six years, madam chair, we will begin paying down the debt with the budget that's before us. western no longer accept the democrats' and president obama's decision to take us down this road of ruin because we have a choice. it's a choice between two destinies. it's a destiny of debt and dependency, the path we're on, or it's a choice, a different path, maybe it's one of opportunity an prosperity, madam chair. i say we choose the path of opportunity and prosperity and this budget, the budget i'll refer to not as the reform s.c. budget, but as america's

budget,y -- will put us on that path to prosperity and opportunity. madam chair, i encourage every member of this body, regardless of party, to support this budget because it is the children who are looking out on us today, looking for that solution, looking for a positive answer and looking for us to work together. this is that opportunity. thank you, madam chair. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman from maryland wish to close? mr. van hollen: i am going to be the last speaker so i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has one minute. mr. garrett: if there's no other speakers then i'll close with the remaining time. madam chairman. the chair: the gentleman from -- mr. garrett: you want to close, right? if you have no other speakers -- the chair: the gentleman from maryland has the right to close. mr. garrett: when i say close i mean i close up with our time.

mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chairman. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i'll use up my remaining -- madam speaker, as we come to the floor today, it is agreement on both sides as to how we got into this mess. republican and democrat on both sides of the aisle, this administration and past administrations as well are to blame. we can point fingers all day to blame. but what we should do is point to the finger to the solution to the problem and the solution is the budget we see on the floor today. the solution is the r.s.c. budget that we have on the floor. the solution is to make sure we do on the floor every day what every single family in this country and what every single business in this country has had to do and that is to make the tough choices, and that is to make the tough choices and that is to live within their means and that is to have a balanced budget. this is the only budget that will come to the floor today that will do all that. this is the only budget that will come that will make sure that we balance, not within 50

years, 40 years, 30 years, 20 years, 10 years. we will balance in five years and we will do so as we protect the safety net of our seniors today and in the future. we will do so at the same time that we protect our children in the future. we will do so in the same time to make sure we don't borrow to pay are the bills today. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. garrett: support the r.s.c. budget. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i thank you, madam chairman. one thing i hope we can all agree on is that we need to protect our children and grandchildren and future generations. the question is not whether we need to do that. of course we do. the issue is how, and i keep hearing my colleagues come forward and passionately talk about that but they're absolutely unwilling to take the balanced approach that has been recommended by bipartisan groups, everyone that's looked at this challenge says we got to make -- take a combination of tough spending cuts but we

also need some revenue, from closing tax loopholes and asking folks at the very top to go back what they were paying during the clinton administration, by the way, the last time we had a balanced budget, and yet despite all that talk, they don't want us to close one loophole. in fact, almost every republican in this house has signed this pledge to grover norquist saying they won't close one tax loophole for the purpose of deficit reduction. they won't ask folks making $1 million to contribute any more to deficit reduction. in fact, they propose to give them another windfall tax cut. that's the choice they make and because of that choice they cut our investment in education for our kids. they cut investments that will strengthen our economy, help build our infrastructure so we can outcompete and outbuild and outeducate the rest of the world. that's what we need to do for

the future of our children, and i urge everybody to vote against this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is -- for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. garrett: in light of the fact that this house -- i hereby ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman has not been recognized for debate. mr. garrett: no, i am just asking for a -- the chair: does the gentleman -- mr. garrett: i'm asking for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman is asking for a recorded vote. a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the -- those in support of the request for a

recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]