ame oil companies that are trying up gas prices juster approaches. why in the world were american taxpayers being asked to subsidize big oil. these are the same oil companies that recorded tens of billions of dollars in profits in the first three months of 2012. they took in tens of millions of dollars in profits in three months while raising gas prices to more than $4 a gallon. we reward them with $40 billion worth of tax breaks and give aways? come on, what is wrong with the leadership of this house of representatives? look, there's nothing wrong with corporations making profits. that's what they are in business to do. what is wrong is for american taxpayers to be subsidizing wildly profitable companies at a time when too many americans are still unemployed and struggling to pay their bills. . still paying astronomical prices at the pump, it's a double whammy for american families. with all the talk about cutting spending and reducing subsidies

here in washington, i would have thought that the rules committee would have made in order my amendment. an amendment by the way, just so there's no confusion here, that i have offered repeatedly, i've offered it over six times and all six times it has been blocked by the rules committee. but the rules committee decided not to make it in order and to say that this is somehow a bipartisan process and then immediately deny any democrat amendments including my amendment to end tax breaks for big oil companies tells you everything you need to know about the republican leadership in this house. this is a lousy process and the american people are paying the price. i would just close by saying the fact that we can't vote up or down on the senate bill to extend the highway bill for at least two years means that our cities and our towns and our states can't plan ahead. what an awful thing for us to do during this difficult economic time. i urge my colleagues to reject this very partisan rule and let's get back to working on a

transportation bill in a bipartisan way that will actually help the american people. enough of these games. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to point out to my colleague from massachusetts that if we raise taxes on the oil companies, surely that will be passed along to consumers -- when i'm finished. i believe the gentleman from colorado probably has adequate time. as my colleague knows, yesterday in the rules committee people on his side of the aisle talked about tax breaks and giveaways and that again implies that all the money that hardworking

taxpayers earn is government money and that is not the way it is. the attitude about giving away money from the federal government implies that the money belongs to the government. i'd also like to point out to my colleague that the subsidies he talks about are not subsidies. they are the tax deductions, tax , quote, breaks that every manufacturer gets, not just the oil companies. and to talk about corporate welfare is a bit disingenuous and with that, mr. speaker, i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: before further yielding, i want to briefly give the gentleman from massachusetts 30 seconds to respond to the gentlelady. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, give me a break. oil companies are making record profits, we're producing more oil in this country than ever before. they're producing so much they're exporting oil and at the same time they're raising gas prices at the pump for average, ordinary citizens. the fact that taxpayers are subsidizing big oil when they're making record profits and sticking it to the american people i think is unconscionable and that's what i tried to get rid of. we should at least have a vote up or down on that on the floor. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. polis: it's my honor to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for how long? mr. polis: 2 1/2. the speaker pro tempore: 2 1/2 minutes. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i would just add one more thing. the amount of subsidies that we are giving to multinational corporations who are taking their jobs overseas, let's stop that. let's stop the subsidies that are going to big agriculture all over this country, not small, mom and pop farms. people who are taking care of themselves, but the big agriculture, let's stop. that let's also stop $147

million going to brazilian cotton farmers as a subsidy every year. they will not tell you, they will not tell you about these subsidies. american taxpayers are footing the bill for that and paying high prices at the gas pump to get their gas and the oil companies are rolling around in that money. i rise in opposition to this rule. yesterday i submitted an amendment to this bill that would have provided a commodity futures trading commission or the cftc with a steady, a sustainable source of funding so that they could do the job that it's been assigned to do. that's oversee the future markets, curb rampant speculation in the oil market that is causing families pain at the pump. again this house majority has put the profit margins of wall street, oil speculators, over the needs of american families and the american economy. they refuse to allow an up or down vote on this amendment. specifically the amendment would authorize the collection of user fees to offset the cost of the

commission's operation. it will simply bring the cftc into line with all other federal financial regulators, such as the securities and exchange commission, the federal deposit insurance corporation. this is in keeping with a pattern by this majority to hamstring this commission at every turn. last year their agricultural appropriations provided only $172 million in funding, 44% below the request, meaning that we have less cops on the beat to stop speculation. we fought back, we got that up to $205 million in the final 2012 budget, but it's not enough for the commission to do its job. meanwhile high oil prices affect every aspect of americans' lives. not just the cost of traveling. but of heating homes, food, other purchases. the cost of gas is irrefuteably affected by rampant speculation in the oil market. goldman sachs has estimated that

speculators increase crude prices by about 20% and the price of gas by 56 cents a gallon. the chairman of exxonmobil talked about speculation going on on wall street. we're here to represent the american consumers. mr. polis: i yield an additional minute to the gentlelady. ms. delauro: the jobs that all of our constituents gave to us, they gave us this job. we're here to represent their interests. and the consumers. not the oil speculators. we need to ensure that the commodities futures trading commission, the agency to regulate the oil industry, that it has the resources that it needs to do the job and is doing it. the amendment that i proposed is a commonsense solution to this problem. it should have had an airing and it should have been passed by this congress because that is in the best interests of american

taxpayers. that's our job and if we're not prepared to do our job, the american people should turn their backs on us and shut the place down. i urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to point out that our colleagues across the aisle, as well as president obama, their answer to everything is to raise taxes. but they never can explain how raising taxes would lower costs, especially on gasoline. to me that shows how disconnected they are from economic reality. and with that, mr. speaker, i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i want to inquire of the gentlelady if she has any remaining speakers? ms. foxx: we have no remaining

speakers and i'm prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close. mr. polis: very well, then. i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: there were several amendments offered in rules committee to make this bill better. to help reduce the budget deficit, my colleague, mr. mcgovern introduced an amendment -- mcgovern, introduced an amendment. as the gentlelady said, that has nothing to do with the price of gas, getting rid of subsidies to oil companies doesn't make gas more affordable. but the question is, why are we giving money to oil and gas companies at a time when we have a national deficit? why don't they pay taxes like every other company? i was a small businessman before i got here and the companies that i was involved with had to pay taxes. what i don't understand is why economically a tax subsidy is

any different than an expenditure subsidy and economists across the ideological spectrum would agree, a government giveaway in corporate welfare is a government giveaway in corporate welfare whether it appears on the tax line or the expenditure line. specifically with regard to ending tax breaks to the oil and gas industry. mr. mcgovern's amendment, which is unfortunately ruled out of order for this bill, would end the section 451 credit for producing oil and gas for margal wells and the section 43 credit for enhanced oil recovery. and the section 263 provision, allowing the existing expend -- expansion of drilling costs and a number of other provisions that in effect gives oil and gas companies a lower tax rate than any other companies in this country. why don't we use that money to reduce the deficit? why don't we use that money to bring down the corporate tax rate overall which is a key component of corporate tax reform that i strongly support?

and discussed with mr. brady in our rules committee yesterday with regard to the other bill which moves in the wrong direction with regards to bringing down our tax rates and having a simpler tax code. mr. mcgovern has offered a similar amendment to save the u.s. government $40 billion to reduce our deficit to several different bills in the past. including through an appropriations bill, an energy bill, a tax bill. every single time the republicans have said, oh, it's not germane to this bill. every single time they voted the mcgovern amendment down. clearly this is a proposal that's worthy of discussion, if it's not a tax discussion and not an energy discussion, not an expenditure discussion, what kind of discussion is it? why can't we be talking about reducing the deficit here on the floor of the house instead of continuing to spend unnecessary money on subsidies? it's funny how the majority party waives rules when it's

convenient for their agenda but refuses to apply a consistent standard to an amendment that is worthy of consideration by this house. at the same time oil companies have record profits, we're continuing to subsidize oil injection, extraction, exploration, drilling, manufacturing, pricing and inventory valuing by creating price wars, offsetting foreign taxes, providing generous credits and deductions, providing tax shelters and allowing the valuation of inventories at deeply discounted prices. if we are serious about deficit reduction, let us take this opportunity to vote down this rule and allow for the discussion of the mcgovern amendment. we need to close these loopholes and allow for real deficit reduction. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment to the rule on the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. polis: and this amendment is

the bishop bill and the brown bill which would simply allow the house the opportunity to vote on the senate bill, which given the strong bipartisan majority in the senate i believe would pass the house of representatives. at least let's give it a chance. let's give the house a chance to work its will, democrats and republicans. and see where we really are with regard to this congress' commitment to critical infrastructure needs in this country. voting down this rule would be the first step in allowing mr. bishop and ms. brown to come forward with the senate bill for consideration in this house, which would provide some certainty to state and local planners, allowing them to reduce costs, get better value for the taxpayer dollar. and i also strongly encourage the majority to consider allowing amendments and good ideas from both sides of the aisle in bills like the

transportation bill and let us work to find an appropriate time and appropriate place for the mcgovern's amendment. and whether the proceeds are used to reduce the deficit or bring down corporate taxes or some split thereof or other worthy public purposes. surely, surely we can at this juncture, when we cannot afford the government we have, help reduce the size and the scope of government by ending subsidies and giveaways to big multinational oil companies. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question. i strongly urge a no vote on the rule and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i urge my colleagues to support this rule. i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on ordering the previous question on the

resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adoptioning a resolution if ordered and agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. 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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 243, the nays are 180. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is adopted. >> i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-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 246. the nays are 177. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the

speaker's approval of the journal on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-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 295.

the nays are 118 with two voting present. the journal stands approved. members will please clear the well and take their conversations from the floor. if members will please clear the well and take their conversations from the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? 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 materials on h.r. 4348. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution

619 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 4348. the chair appoints the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 4348 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide an extension of federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit and other programs funded ou of the highway trust fund pending enactment of a multiyear law re-authorizing such programs and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from florida, mr.

mica, and the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. mica. mr. mica: thank you, mr. speaker. i believe the house is still not in order and we want to proceed on this bill. the chair: the committee will be in order. would everyone take their conversations off the floor? the gentleman is recognized. mr. mica: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mica: first of all, i ask unanimous consent that the exchange of letters between the committee on transportation and infrastructure and the ways and means committee be included in the congressional record. the chair: the request is covered by general leave. the chair: thank you, mr. speaker --

mr. mica: i'm sorry. i yield myself the balance of the time. mr. chairman and members of the house, today we bring up the surface transportation extension act of 2012. this is the second part of an extension that we passed previously just before the congress recessed and went into the easter work period and holiday. the house did pass a 90-day extension and that extension expires on june 30, 2012. the extension before us today is an additional 90-day extension, and the purpose of this extension is that we can hopefully bring about resolution and conference legislation to complete our

transportation bill. now, the previous extension was the ninth extension and the democrats, the other side of the aisle were forced to pass six extensions. so i'm hoping that this will be our last extension and also provide us a vehicle to conclude this important work that so many jobs across this country are relying on, that the building of the -- our nation's infrastructure is tied to this work and completion of this important task. this is a fairly clean extension. there are a couple of provisions in here that i think will provide increased energy for the country and if anyone has not felt the pain at the pump, all they need to do is go to local gas station.

i saw today the lowest cost gas in a local station a couple blocks from here was $4.45 a gallon. and this particularly hurts the working men and women of america and those on fixed or limited income, and i think the provision that we have here is an excellent provision and i'll talk a little bit more about that. so this, again, is a vehicle that can deliver us to completion of the important work. this extension has levels of funding that are consistent with the transportation appropriations bills signed by the president in november, and we'll consider, i believe, three amendments that have been made in order by the rules committee. let me talk about them again very briefly. first, the keystone pipeline provision. you know, this administration is still meandering and not

only on transportation legislation but also on energy legislation and has not found their way unfortunately for the american people. but this bill can provide us a more reliable source of energy. we're talking about a pipeline and a source from a good ally and neighbor in the north american continent. we're not talking about relying on venezuela, the middle east or nigeria where we get a lot of our supplies for energy today. . so it can provide some stability, and reduction in price for the consumer, particularly when they are so hard hit at this time. so we'll have more to talk about in regard to the keystone pipeline. this pipeline's been studied to death. this administration, for over

three years, has delayed approval. the president has approved a small part and one section of it -- the country, or at least he said he would, and you can't build a pipeline that can actually deliver energy and lower costs and reliable fuel in a piecemeal fashion. this project, keystone pipeline, has been studied for 3 1/2 years now. they built the entire alaska pipeline in that period of time. so the time for studying, for delay, and for not acting on reducing energy cost, and increasing supply, has ended. additionally we have a couple of other provisions in here which i'm supportive of. one is the restore act which creates the gulf restoration trust fund. and that provides for a fair

and equitable manner for division of the penalties collected by those responsible for the deep water horizon oil spill. i think that is a provision that can also help a lot of our gulf states that were hard hit and impacted by that disaster. and finally i think that another amendment that i think is very laudatory is one by mr. ribble. i think it's been made in order. and that carries from h.r. 7, a lot of the streamlining provisions that we think are so important to getting projects done. you know, president obama promised us an infrastructure when they sold the $787 billion stimulus, so-called stimulus package. mr. oberstar and i came back here at the time they were

looking at a $250 billion to $300 billion stimulus bill, of which 50% would be in fact infrastructure. as it turned out it was 6% or 7%, some $63 billion. and last october there was still 35% of the $63 billion for infrastructure, stuck in the treasury in washington, d.c. 2 1/2 years after we passed stimulus. so you can passion all the transportation bills you can't -- pass all the transportation bills you want, and if you can't deliver the project and cut the red tape and paperwork that washington thrives on, then you can't get anything done. that provision is so important moving transportation legislation forward that can make a difference in getting he projects done. in the hearings that we did across the country starting in mr. rahall's district, the

democrat leader of the committee in beckley, west virginia, we heard at every single hearing all the way to the west coast when we did a bipartisan unprecedented bicameral with senator boxer hearing on that coast, every single hearing almost without question and most of the witnesses all said that we needed to speed up the project. shovel ready has become a national joke. we've got to end that sad commentary, that sad joke that doesn't allow us to go forward. i think the ribble amendment will do that. with that again i think we have a vehicle that we can get to conference, work in a bipartisan and bicameral manner to get the job done. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from --

the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rahall: the last long-term surface transportation authorization expired on september 30, 2009. we continue to limp along patching together our nation's transportation system through short-term extensions that cause uncertainty and create chaos for construction crews and local communities across the country and our state transportation departments. the committee on transportation and infrastructure reported the house republican leadership's misguided five-year surface transportation bill on february 13 of this year. the rules committee approved a rule governing its consideration on the floor on february 15. that was nine weeks ago this day. and during that time the republican leadership has failed to find the votes among its members to pass that bill. yet instead of working across party lines as we have traditionally done for decades on transportation policy, the

extreme right wing of their party continues to hold the process hostage to their ideological tirade that the federal government has no business in supporting a national transportation system. three weeks ago i rose to oppose another extension, the ninth extension, since these critical job created transportation programs expired in 2009 because republicans refused to move the process forward by bringing up the bipartisan senate-passed bill but instead merely wanted to kick the can down the road once again. mr. chairman, we are running out of road. i oppose the short-term extension because i could not for the life of me figure out what difference the republican leadership hoped to achieve offer the next 12 weeks. that they were unable to achieve over the previous six weeks. i failed to understand the pr verse notion if we simply -- perverse notion if we simply

ned their addiction with extensions one more time the skies would magically part and the republican leadership would miraculously garner enough votes on their side of the aisle to pass h.r. 7. that was a five-year bill reported by the t&i committee, something they have failed to do for months. last week we heard the republican leadership would again be bringing up a short-term extension as a ticket to conference with the senate. that's the bill that is before us today. when compared to h.r. 7, which is fatally flawed, a fatally flawed bill that would mortgage america's future at subprime rates, a clean extension is a vehicle to keep the ball rolling provided, provided that the republican leadership will truly allow us to conference, to go to conference with the other body. unlike h.r. 7, a clean extension does not make shortsighted cuts to surface transportation investment that

would destroy jobs and economic growth. these cuts are out. we are talking about funding at current levels. under the scheme advanced by the majority, public transit revenue would have been shifted to highways. transit would have been failed out with a one-time transfer of $40 billion from the general fund robbing middle class americans to pay for the shuffle. under a clean extension, this -- that we are considering today, this misguided shell game is gone, fortunately. the majority's proposal fails to close all the existing loopholes and buy america laws. these gaping loopholes are being exploited by foreign competitors like china who are stealing american jobs and undermining our ability to create more american jobs and to revive american manufacturing. under today's bill, locking in these loopholes are out and these provisions can be revisitted in a long-term bill. under a clean extension the

majority's poison pill would needliesly eliminate occupational safety and health administration protection for hazmat workers as was original in h.r. 7. that thankfully is gone today. the majority's efforts to subsidize private transit companies and mandate the use of private engineering firms on federal-aid highway projects is gone in today's bill. instead of turning back the clock nearly half a century on america's greatness, and the incredible work we have done to grow our nation, to build a thriving economy, and lead the global market, we should be working together to develop a bipartisan bill that can pass both bodies and be signed into law. now, taking the other side that they are serious about moving the process forward and i'm beginning to think that may be a likely scenario, passage of this extension of current law through the end of the fiscal year will allow us to go to conference with the other body

on their bipartisan multiyear bill which passed with the support of 3/4 of the senate, 74 votes in that other body. how many pieces of legislation do you get that many votes in the other body on? a long-term bill will provide the certainty that states need to invest and proceed with their plans that have been long on the books. it will provide the certainty that highway and transit contractors desperately need to give them the confidence to hire that one more worker. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield four minutes to the chair of the highway subcommittee, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. h.r. 4348 extends the surface transportation programs through september 30, 2012, at funding levels consistent with the

fiscal year 2012 transportation appropriation bill which we passed in november. uned current extension the highway transit and highway safety programs are set to expire on june 30. this legislation will allow these programs to continue through the fiscal year and to provide predictibility during the summer construction season. this bill also includes provisions related to the approval of the keystone pipe line. with rising gas prices and uncertainty in the middle east, it is vital that we complete construction of this crucial pipeline in order to help secure our nation's energy resources. if we don't do this, mr. speaker, all we'll be doing is helping foreign energy producers. i had originally hoped that the house would be able to move h.r. 7, the five-year surface transportation re-authorization bill that was passed by our committee in february. unfortunately we were not able to bring h.r. 7 to the house floor at this time. instead we will use this bill as a vehicle to conference with the senate-passed surface

transportation re-authorization bill. there were three amendments that were made in order by the rules committee and i would like to express my support for all three. mr. boustany's amendment would require that we spend the revenue we are collecting for the harbor maintenance trust fund on army corps of engineers projects as opposed to using this revenue to offset spending elsewhere in the federal budget. this is a commonsense solution to help upgrade our nation's ports and maintain our global economic competitiveness. just this morning we held a hearing on the importance to our entire economy of our waterway system. and mr. boustany's amendment will certainly help in that regard. mr. ribble's amendment is based on the environmental streamlining provisions that were included in h.r. 7. this amendment would eliminate duplication by providing a single system to review decisions. it reduces bureaucratic delay by requiring a concurrent instead of consecutive project reviews. and setting deadlines for the completion of environmental

reviews. these changes could cut the delivery process in half and could save taxpayers many, many billions over the next several years. the last two studies by the federal highway administration said the average highway project takes 13 years, one study said 15 years. and that is far too long. other developed nations doing these projects in half the time or less than we are. mr. mckinley's amendment includes the text of h.r. 2273, the coal residual reuse and management act. this amendment would prohibit the united states environmental protection agency from driving coal-fired power plants out of existencing and tripling our utility bills. the u.s. has been told that saudi arabia have told, mr. speaker f. we do not use our coal in a clean and safe way, we will hurt millions of poor and lower income working people all across this nation. i salute chairman mica for his hard work on this bill for the last several months and i urge my colleagues to support h.r.

4348 and the subsequent amendments. i yield back to chairman mica the rest of my time. the chair: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i'm honored to yield four minutes at this time to the distinguished ranking member from the state of oregon, the ranking member on our transit and highway subcommittee, mr. defazio. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman for yielding. well, it appears that the house has finally found the path out of dysfunction junction. we have been there for too long. we need a long-term, as long term as possible, transportation bill as soon as possible. now, this extension is for 180 days. we can't wait 180 days to come to agreement with the senate. we need to go to a expedited conference as soon as possible. we have been gathering data

from the individual states since the last 90-day extension three weeks ago. the state of north carolina has canceled $1.2 billion worth of projects, 40,000 jobs this year. other states are reporting in none quite so drastic, but the grand total is going to be probably close to 100,000 jobs forgone because of the uncertainty created by these 90-day extensions. . this should be the last one, and we should proceed immediately to conference and begin to work through our differences with the senate. even h.r. 7, which the republicans couldn't get out of their own conference, they couldn't get agreement between those 50 or 60 who believe their national transportation policy should be set individually by the 50 states. wow, what does that mean? and/or transit should be thrown under the bus or out of the bus with other members of their

caucus saying, wait a minute, that's totally unacceptable to us. they couldn't get the bill out. the fact they couldn't get the bill out, there's much overlap in agreement between many provisions between h.r. 7 and what the senate has done. i believe we can conference those areas in disagreement quite promptly. as the ranking member said, this no longer ends safe routes to school, something which i opposed in h.r. 7, and other cycling and alternate modes of transportation. it doesn't throw transit out the window, off the bridge, but transit would be in play between the house and the senate. during the last major authorization safetea-lu, we had an incredible fight in conference, but it wasn't between democrats and republicans. it was between the house and the senate, and we fought for a number of weeks over the split between transit and it came to a good accommodation, i

believe, and hopefully it will end close to that in this. but the senate bill, which we tried to force a vote on, and had we put that in place three weeks ago instead of the 90-day extension we wouldn't have lost or been in the process of losing all those contracts and jobs now at the beginning of the construction season. that's about 100,000 jobs potentially lost with more temporary extensions. but we would instead have seen another 500,000 jobs which is the predicted result of the stability of two years of funding with the senate bill. so i will support this iteration because i am anxious to get to conference. i'm anxious to get to agreement. i believe we should get it done before the middle of may so states can tapture this construction season and -- capture this construction season and we can put a few hundred thousands people back to work and those who supply them back to work.

and finally on excessive fuel prices. there's one thing we can do immediately. the x.l.line, first off, they say they are going to -- x.l. pipeline, first off, they say they are going to refine it. with prices being set at a world market, and it's being set by speculators on wall street. if we just clamped down on the speculation on wall street, the head of exxonmobil, goldman sachs, the st. louis federal reserve and prominent economists say we can save consumers 60 cents to 70 cents a gallon tomorrow if we stopped the ripoffs by the people on wall street and the excessive speculation by the people on wall street, something that's been allowed for a decade. if we want to do something real, that should be part of this bill. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. mica: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished chair of the house energy and commerce

committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. upton: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, this is a highway and infrastructure bill. that means it is a jobs bill. i remind my colleagues and those watching that the president said back in january as part of his weekly address that he would do whatever it takes, whatever it takes to create jobs. there is not a more shovel-ready project than the keystone x.l. pipeline, period. secretary clinton said in october of 2010, i am inclined to support this project. in august of 2011, she indicated there was no reason why they couldn't give an approval or denial by the end of last year. this is 20,000 direct jobs. more than 100,000 indirect jobs. a $7 billion privately funded pipeline that will subscribe to

the pipeline safety bill that this committee as well as the energy and commerce committee worked on, that the president signed last year. raising the standards, raising the fines for those who violate those standards. it is a better pipeline safety route than ever before. i have to say for those detractors, the routes been changed through nebraska. it will no longer go through that aquifer. we will bring as much as 800,000 barrels of oil from the oil sands in canada. as these gas prices continue to go up, americans understand supply and demand. 800,000 barrels a day that we can get from our friends, the canadians, and if we don't do so, where is it going to go? china. china is already preparing to spend billions of dollars to instead build that pipeline to vancouver, send it to china to be refined and, guess what, we

will get none of the oil, none of that refined oil back. some detractors of this project said, why don't we build a refinery in north dakota? well, let's say we did. are you not going to still build a pipeline to connect it with the supply routes across the country? can i -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. upton: mr. chairman, could i have 30 seconds more? mr. mica: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. upton: mr. chairman, we have not built a new refinery since 1976. e.p.a. will not allow new refineries to be built. we have spent instead billions of dollars, billions to expand the refineries that we have. under regular order, we move this keystone x.l. pipeline last summer. it passed on the house floor 2-1. there is no reason why a construction project like this shouldn't be in this bill. i look forward to the passage of this bill later this afternoon with the inclusion of the keystone x.l. pipeline, and

i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to the distinguished lady from florida, the ranking member on our subcommittee on railroads, ms. corrine brown. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. brown: thank you, chairman mica and mr. rahall, and i will vote for this 18-month extension, but i got to tell you the republican leadership has turned the house floor into a franken stein lab -- frankenstein laboratory. instead of bringing a transportation bill that could get the support from both sides, they brought a bill to the floor that couldn't get support from either side. now after they couldn't convince the tea party members that transportation is actually very important to our economy, they are taking parts from different bills and creating the monster of -- that they call transportation.

it's a very sad time for transportation in the house of representatives. the republican leadership has ruined a process that used to be bipartisan, from a committee that used to be bipartisan. this is not the way to run the u.s. house of representatives, and it is clearly not the way the american people want it to be run. i've been on the transportation committee for 20 years, and it's always been partisan. never been partisan. we were the people that moved goods and services and put millions of people to work. now we gut funding, and the republican leadership has had a war on our transportation committee from the very beginning. first, they removed the firewalls from the trust fund and would not no doubt be raiding it if we had any money in it. then they cut the size of our

committee in half. then, they gave us all freshmen members who don't know how to say anything but no, no, no, no. no, no, no, no, no. and for two straight years they gut transportation funding in the ryan budget. you know, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. president barack obama said recently that republicans used to like build roads. all of our stakeholders support a comprehensive transportation bill, and i am hoping that we can pass -- i hate to say it -- the senate bill. we used to do the work, but i hope we can pass the senate bill. and i really want to say thank god for the united states senate, because finally we have some people that are putting together a transportation bill that really will put the american people to work. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady

yields back. ms. brown: i yield my time to mr. rahall. the chair: yes, ma'am. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: mr. chairman, i am pleased to yield to the gentleman from nebraska who is a leader and one of the authors of the keystone provisions in this legislation, mr. terry. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for 90 seconds. mr. terry: thank you, mr. chairman. certainly the president of the united states knows how to say no. he says no to the keystone pipeline, turning down its application just three months ago. this gives the united states access to probably the largest known reserve, oil sitting there in a pool in north america, but the president won't allow us to have access to it. but yet during this administration, gas prices at the pump have gone up 120%. people in my district keep asking me, what's the energy policy? i have to tell them i don't

know. he kills a pipeline giving us access to oil which would increase supply in the united states, but yet sends billions of dollars to sew lindh are a and solar -- is i lindh are a and solar -- solyndra and solar panel companies. now, let's look at this $7 billion privately funded -- oh, that's right. maybe that's the problem. it's privately funded. infrastructure project to bring us more gasoline. it's denied $7 billion project to bring 20,000 new jobs. the president says he'll do anything to create new jobs but kills a pipeline that would get union workers off the benches and into the fields working. now, it creates 20,000 jobs.

mr. mica: i yield 30 seconds. mr. terry: i only need 15. mr. mica: i yield 15 seconds. mr. terry: there's millions of jobs if we just used our own resources. do you know we can be completely energy secure using our own resources, but this administration lacks the will to be able to do that. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: may i have a time check, please, mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman from west virginia has 18 minutes remaining. mr. rahall: i'm sorry. how many? the chair: 15 1/4 for the gentleman from florida. mr. rahall: how much ask i have? the chair: 18. mr. rahall: i yield three

minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. nadler: i rise in opposition to h.r. 4348, the second extension for transportation. the republicans cannot get consensus among themselves on a long-term transportation bill. they can't get consensus on a short-term extension bill. they can barely pass this 90-day extension. the only way to get through is to add the keystone x.l. pipeline. the republican leadership keeps playing the same cards over and over but nobody is playing this game anymore. the senate has moved on. the senate passed a bipartisan bill. we should do the same. the purpose of this extension is to service a vehicle to formally go to conference with the senate. i must confess i might be inclined to vote for it on that basis. if it houses the -- if it hases, it will put the policy reforms from the senate in a

stronger footing but i believe this is a delaying tactic and a smokescreen. for a year and a half, the house republicans have stubbornly refused to work with the democrats to develop a bipartisan bill. completely upending the historical traditions of our committee. this is despite the fact there are plenty of individual republican members who are willing to work with us on certain issues. when h.r. 7, the original republican long-term re-authorization bill was introduced, several republican members joined me on an amendment to preserve the transit funding that would have been gutted in h.r. 7. that was probably one of the reasons that h.r. 7 was ultimately pulled before it could get to the floor. so there are clearly members on the other side of the aisle who would work with us to develop a bipartisan bill. but the republican leadership stubbornly refuses to let that happen. why should we expect anything different in conference? the republican leadership could also just bring up the senate bill, but they won't even allow a vote. why? what are they afraid of? because they know it would probably pass. and what would be wrong with that? the senate bill isn't perfect but it's a bipartisan compromise measure that would put people to work right away

and provide more certainty to the transportation agencies than a stream of short-term extensions. we could resolve this situation right now, but they continue to block legislation that would likely pass both chambers on a bipartisan basis and be signed into law by the president. i hope that my concerns about the intent of the other side of the aisle turn out to be unwarranted. i hope that if this extension passes it will ultimately move the process along in a positive manner, that we will have a meaningful conference that will produce a good bipartisan bill. passing an extension is certainly better than certainly passing h.r. 7, but given what has transpired so far and given the addition of the keystone pipeline and other environmental measures, i must reluctantly vote no. the keystoneline will cut through the united states and allow canada to deliver up to 900,000 barrels of oil to gulf shore refineries. producing one barrel of tar sand oil will produce three times more global polluting

than regular oil. the keystone pipeline has been called the game changer and there is no guarantee that the oil extracted will be delivered to u.s. consumers. we can't have a step backward in the fight against global warming. but these objections are not the administration's. the administration certainly wants to complete the normal environmental review the keystone pipeline provided by law to decide whether to approve it or not. but this legislation mandates approval regardless of -- and supersedes the normal process. this makes it impossible. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. . pl mica: at this time -- mr. mica: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished representative, former chair of the government reform and oversight committee, mr. burton from indiana. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. burton: mr. speaker, i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. a question, a question, does the president he miss lead?

i have -- mislead? i have been watching on television the last couple days he says we only have 2% of the oil reserves and we have been doing more drilling over the past couple three years than we have ever done before. let's look at the facts. i hope somebody at the white house may be paying attention. according to the american petroleum institute, the number of new permits to drill issued by the bureau of land management is down 40%. from an average of 64 --6444 to 6,962 in 2009-2010. during the same period of number of new wells drilled on federal land have declined by 40%. and yet he keeps telling us the reason the gas prices are going up is for a number of other reasons. the fact is we are not drilling here. we've got more oil and oil

shale in publiclands than they have in saudi arabia and we are not exploring for it. president obama sites that the oil production is an all-time high during his administration. however oil production on federal land fell by 11% last year. oil production on private and state owned land grew by 14%. so what he's talking about is, he can't touch it on private land, the drilling is up a little bit. but that's only a small portion of the oil that's available. federal lands hold an estimated, get this, 116.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil, enough to produce gasoline, for get this, 65 million cars and fuel oil for 3.2 million households for 60 years. and yet the administration keeps saying, we can't do it. we were doing everything we can. the american people need to know the truth. the truth is if we use our own

natural resources in five, 10, 15 years we could be energy independent. but this administration wants to put more control in the federal administration -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mica: 15 additional seconds. mr. burton: thank you. this administration wants to put more and more control in the federal government. in health care, in energy, and every other area, because he believes in the european style socialistic approach to government. the american people need to know that. he isn't giving us the facts. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, i yield 2 1/2 minutes to distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. steve cohen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes and 30 seconds. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker, mr. chairman. last week in memphis i met with dozens of transportation, business, civil officials involved in transportation. every one of them said stop the partisan politics and pass a transportation bill.

secretary ray lahood, a republican who served 12 years in this house and 17 years in the chief of staff to bob michel, one of the great members of this group, came to memphis. he said pass the transportation bill. the reason they don't want to do it because they don't want to give president obama any jobs because they want to beat president obama and the american people don't matter. that's the fact. the secretary said this is the worst transportation bill he's ever seen. he said it shouldn't be politicized. transportation leaders across the country and our republican transportation secretary are begging us to take up the senate bill, get it passed, put americans back to work, and improve our infrastructure. what's going on here is political. gas prices are soaring. but that's because of trouble in the middle east. that's because of oil speculators. it's not because of the keystone x.l. pipeline. that is hooey. domestic oil prices are set by the international market and more and more emerging economies are wanting and needing oil, that causes the price to go up.

this assertion, the assertion that international -- gas will go down because the pipeline is false. if the pipeline is completed, gas prices will go up in this country and transcanada said that in their papers when they tried to get the pipeline approved. this will not mean more energy security, it will simply mean more money for international oil companies whose purpose is to raise money for themselves. and they are going to ship that oil overseas. it's not for american consumption. yeah, they are not middle eastern, but they are making profit and they are going to send that oil overseas. it won't help america at all. and then they threw in something about coal ash. coal ash rules that the e.p.a. had would prevent a disaster -- has nothing to do with transportation. put america back to work. pass the senate bill. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the committee is not in order.

the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: mr. chairman, i yield myself a minute and a half. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. mica: let me just say, i heard repeated here some things about what the secretary said and he did not have favorable comments about h.r. 7. so we have tried to bring something forward that would bring us to passing a bill and getting people to work and getting this resolved. then today the secretary said the congress would not pass a multiyear bill instead of saying he would work with us and be a leader to do that. then the secretary went on to say, he said, look what they have loaded it up with, speaking about this bill today, keystone, coal ash, none of it has anything to do with transportation. first of all, the secretary should -- i guess it's difficult for him to understand that energy costs and the pain

at the pump are killing the consumer and impacting dramatically the american people. keystone does have something to do with that. i guess if you have a chauffeur pick you up in the morning and you're not pumping the gas yourself and taking the money out of your pocket you wouldn't understand the relevance of keystone. then coal ash which was just referred to here by the gentleman. it makes our surface--i will not yield and i don't like being interrupted, especially when i have a good point. coal ash, to continue, although being interrupted, makes the surface more durable and it's important that we get value when we are putting money into roads and pavement. so it's a very important provision and save costs and gets us more for our money. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, i

yield three minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the house natural resources committee, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman. this pill is an environmental atross -- bill is an environmental atrocity. the majority has allowed an unrelated amendment that would forbid the e.p.a., forbid them from requiring the safe disposal of toxic coal waste that contains arsenic, mercury, and chromium. the majority has allowed an amendment that would provide massive exemptions from the national environmental policy act and smoothers the ability of communities to have input into projects that could create toxic nightmares in local neighborhoods. this is what the republicans are doing out here today. e.p.a., every polluter's ally, that's what they want to turn it into. so what we have on top of that

is a provision to build the keystone pipeline through the united states of america from canada, the dirtiest oil in the world, bring it through the united states, and then to bring it to port out to texas. now, what goes on in port arthur, texas? very interesting. i think it's important for the american people to know what happens there. last year 73% of all of the gasoline that was refined in port arthur in the houston area was exported out of the united states. undersfan what i'm saying in this is -- understand what i'm saying? this is oil found in the united states, drilled for in the united states, sent down to texas, we find down there in the houston and port arthur area, and exported it. where did they export it to?

our oil, united states oil. they exported it to chesapeake bay. -- china the to the communists. the republicans are here with an amendment that makes it possible for us to stop the oil from the keystone pipeline from being sent to the communist chinese. now, i hear a gentleman out here charging president obama with being a socialist. but who would engage in this kind ever activity? to have the pretend that they want to have oil for the united states and for our citizens and then when i ask for an amendment to ensure that all the oil that comes through the keystone pipeline stays in the united states, the republicans say, you're not making that amendment. we are going to tie your hands, mr. markey. you can't make the amendment. we don't want you to make us. be prohibited from selling this oil to the communist chinese. ladies and gentlemen, that's just wrong.

that's wrong. that oil is american oil. that oil should stay in the united states. if we are building this pipeline, it should stay here in the united states. we should not be exporting american oil with gasoline prices at $4 a gallon to china and latin america. that's what this whole plot is about by the way. this is a plot to build a pipeline that would support arthur, texas, tax free. that's why they -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. mica: i'm pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffith. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 90 seconds. mr. griffith: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the keystone x.l. pipeline as well as the underlying bill. the plot here is for jobs, american jobs. it's a no-brainer. like most arkansans i support this pro-jobs project that will strengthen our national security, by making us less

dependent on middle eastern oil. arkansas families and businesses are hurting due to high gas prices and the keystone pipeline will bring an additional one million barrels of oil per day into the united states. more supply means lower prices and arkansans as well as all americans need relief from these high gas prices. president obama denied construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline despite years of extensive vetting for environmental impacts. make no mistake, the president's decision to reject the keystone pipeline has cost american jobs. well spun, a manufacturer in my district, has manufactured nearly half of the pipe for the keystone pipeline and was forced to lay off 60 workers after the president rejected the pipeline. after he delayed it last year. the key stone pipeline will strengthen american energy security and create tens of thousands of good american jobs.

it's past time to move the keystone pipeline forward. thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: time check please, mr. chairman. the chair: both sides have 10 minutes remaining. mr. rahall: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i would ask my chairman, i'm ready to conclude. is he ready to conclude? i know you have the right to conclude. mr. mica: i do have the right to conclude. i was expecting one additional speaker. mr. rahall: same here. mr. mica: i yield myself one minute at this time, then. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. mr. mica: i know there's a lot of disapoiment on the other side of the aisle because this extension and this ability to get the bill done contains no earmarks, no tax increases, and no programs of bigger

government. so i know they are disappointed in that regard. the other thing, too, that folks should remember is, we have done everything we can in a bipartisan -- to move this process forward. i remember working with mr. oberstar, the former chairman, when the current secretary and the president came in and said, they were going to do a six-year bill. when they had all the votes, huge majorities and they could have put people to work and got this done. instead they gave us six extensions, so here we are trying to get the job done. . as the cable guy says and my son says, guys, we are going to get er done. we are going to get er done. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, i yield myself the remainder of my time, actually. we are going to have time

during amendment process to debate the three amendments that have been made in order under the rule. and i wish more had been made in order. that's why i voted against the rule. but that decision was the rules committee. the three that will be allowed, of course, one has to do with environmental gutting. i mean, streamlining. the other has to do with the harbor maintenance trust fund. and then the third has to do with the legislation introduced by my colleague from west virginia, mr. mckinley, dealing with coal waste ash. the latter which there is support from my side of the aisle for it and indeed myself. the harbor maintenance fund is a good amendment. i am glad the rules committee made that in order and find myself in position to support that as well as the coal ash amendment. at the proper time i'll speak further on it. i will say the gentleman from florida, my chairman, has

referred to the inability of our side of the aisle to pass legislation when we were in control of this body. we may have been in control of the other body as well, although we were not, because the minority over there, as the gentleman knows, has the more power than the majority in the other body. and perhaps we did not have the full support of the administration as we would like under then chairman oberstar. i don't think anyone of us will deny that on this side of the aisle. but the fact of the matter is today with the other body being more divided than it was in previous leadership regimes, they have passed a bipartisan bill. half of the republican members of the other body supported their bipartisan transportation bill. both the chairlady and the

ranking member of the relevant committee joined together, put their names on a piece of legislation, put some reforms in it that are good reforms, provided two-year bill paid for and i believe it is a bill we should have been considering today and that i had asked the rules committee yesterday to consider, but they did not grant my wishes. so we are where we are today. we have an additional 90-day extension that will be -- we will be asked to vote on later today, and that's a good thing, i guess, if we get to a conference. and this is the final point i want to make. that conference must be held sooner rather than later. it must be held as soon as possible. we're ready to go to conference later today. if the conferees were to be announced and we already had the senate bill, so from our

side of the aisle, we're ready to go to conference today, right now. and i would urge the majority in this body to call that conference as soon as possible. our workers cannot wait any longer. our small businesses cannot wait any longer. our road contractors cannot wait any longer. this is the time of the year when road contracts are let, as i'm sure my distinguished chairman and every member of this body knows full well. this is the time of the year. the springtime of the year when those decisions have to be made. when our road contractors need to let their employees and perspective employees know today they need to let them know whether or not they are going to have a job. not 90 days from now. not 90-plus days from now, but today, and so that's why i urge this conference committee work

as quickly as possible. that our administration calls this conference. we need those american jobs now and i would hope that chairman mica would join me in a bipartisan plea to assign conferees as expeditiously as possible and to call a conference even quicker if that's possible. i yield back the balance of my time. i'm sorry. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: thank you. i'm pleased to yield one of the leaders for responsible government, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. flake: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for yielding. i rise in support of the provision in this legislation to get construction of the keystone pipeline under way. for months members on both side of the aisle have work to impress upon the administration the urgent need for the keystone x.l. pipeline project to proceed. justification for keystone as a safe and critical boom to private sector job creation and

american energy security has not changed. this project, as we all know, carries with it thousands of jobs. it will still increase the nation's capacity to transport crude oil by 830,000 barrels a day and the state department is still on record saying the keystone, quote, poses little environmental risk, and will lead to, quote, no significant impacts to most resources. but unfortunately the administration's reluctance to proceed with keystone has left some that question things on keystone and some debate to begin. the unemployment rate is still above 8%. the u.s. still relies on the same sources of energy of foreign energy and a lot of the americans are asking why. why in the world can't we get this approved? i would urge adoption of this provision, this provision is good. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman. i have concerns overall on the transportation provisions, but

this provision is very good. the keystone provision should remain in. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes of one of the leaders of the energy and commerce committee that helped around this legislation, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the gentleman from florida for yielding and for bringing this legislation forward and specifically want to talk about title 3 of this bill and that deals with the restore act. of course, this friday will mark the two-year anniversary of the deep-water horizon disaster, and people across the country saw for weeks and weeks oil coming into the gulf of mexico destroying ecosystems, destroying economic industries and yet still to this day there is no mechanism in place to dictate what should happen to

those fines that b.p. and the other responsible parties will have to pay under the clean water act. under this component, the restore act will set that policy out. it was a compilation of work from republicans and democrats from all five gulf coast states that came together and recognized the most responsible thing to do would be to dedicate that money, 80% of those fines to the gulf coast states so that we actually have revenue to go and restore the damage that's been done. i think most people recognize the right thing to do is to dedicate that money, not to send it up to washington to be spent on things unrelated, but to actually allow us to restore the damage that was done in the gulf of mexico from that tragedy. and that's what this bill does. the mechanism is in place, and as we go to a conference committee, i feel very confident we can get to a point where we have the full restore act in the final product so that there is no question that there's a commitment from this congress that the gulf coast

states ought to have the ability to restore the damage that was done during that tragedy. of course another component of this bill is the keystone pipeline, and i think as we look at the -- so many families are facing with us clating gas prices, the fact you have gas prices in some places already over $4 a gallon, experts predicting $5 a gallon gasoline. here we have a friend in canada saying they want to send a million barrels of oil a day to america which is a million barrels a day from countries who don't like us. battles across the middle east, and we got the ability to create 20,000 jobs and secure energy security. i look forward to passage of this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: is the the gentleman from florida ready to close?

mr. mica: i'm ready to close. mr. rahall: i know how much time i have left, i think, but tell me, mr. chairman. the chair: 5 1/2 minutes. mr. rahall: let me again repeat what i said a moment ago. i'm sure the chairman heard me, and i'm asking once again that we go to conference as quickly as possible. i gave the reasons in my conclusion speech why that is necessary for the sake of jobs for americans and i would hope that in one last ditch effort, one last ditch effort to plead for bipartisanship in this body as the other body have already demonstrated and proved that perhaps the ranking member will -- perhaps the chairman will join the ranking member, me, to go to conference as quickly as possible. i explain -- the legislative process has been explained to me. when you cut through it all we can go to conference as early

as tonight on this legislation. so i would ask the chairman once again if he would join me in that last bipartisan plea i make for us, a joint pleading with the speaker to go to conference. i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio. the chair: the gentleman from oregon -- mr. defazio: i'd yield to the chairman of the committee in the hope he would respond to that because i think it's a reasonable request. mr. mica: and i would tell the gentleman, am i on the gentleman's time? the chair: yes. mr. mica: i plan to respond in not taking his time but in taking my time to the request from the distinguished ranking member from west virginia, mr. rahall, and i will have an answer in response to his specific question dealing whether or not i would sign the letter asking for an expeditious approval and consideration of appointments

of conferees and going to conference in an expedited manner. mr. defazio: reclaiming my time. i'm afraid i didn't quite catch that. if the gentleman is saying that he wants to originate the letter making those points, i will tell him right now i would sign it and i believe the gentleman from west virginia would sign it. if that's the problem that he's insinuating that we in the minority wouldn't initiate the letter, the point is we'd love to have the chairman write the letter and be willing to sign it. my understanding of the procedures that have been set forth already in the senate is when we send this bill to the senate and it could be there within a couple hours that leader mcconnell and reid must sit down and agree that it meets their preconditions to go to conference. if it does then the senate goes automatically to conference. they do have to go through all their usual procedures. and then that they would send the request for conference back to us which could be here

tonight or early tomorrow morning and we could appoint conferees tomorrow and we could begin negotiating the bill. i have things scheduled. i am willing to clear my weekend schedule. i hope to be a conferee on our side of the aisle to go to conference because we really need to get the certainty the states need. every day states are announcing delays and cancellations of projects for this construction season which for those of us who live in the northern part of the country, not down in florida, means they don't get done this year. if they can't commit to a project by the end of may, except for some very minor projects, it won't get done this year. we need those jobs. we need those projects. instead of adding jobs and projects today because of the temporary nature of these two extensions, states are notifying d.o.t. that they are going to delay or cancel

projects. again, in the case of north carolina, a $2,1,000,000,000. in my state a couple hundred thousand jobs lost. across the country it probably adds up to hundreds of thousands of construction jobs that could be forgone if we don't have alonger term bill done by mid to late may. i think it's entirely possible. i say on this side of the aisle, we want to exat the died going to conference. that's the reason we will support this bill despite some of its faults because the majority has shown a willingness to sit down seriously and get this done but we can't delay. we have to move forward. let's start tomorrow. let's work through the weekend. let's work through the next break. we already had 10 or 12 or 15 breaks this year. let's work through the next break. i'm cancel my schedule for that break, too, and get this bill done for the american people, for our transportation system

by mid may. with that i would yield back my time to the gentleman. mr. rahall: as we are all anxiously awaiting the chairman to respond on his time, i will yield back my time so that we all can wait to hear the distinguished chairman's response to our invitation. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: i yield myself the balance of my time. might i inquire as to what time is remaining? the chair: 5 3/4 minutes. mr. mica: thank you. thank you, and i yield myself that time. i will conclude. first of all, let me say, on a serious basis, that i've tried to have the best working relationship possible with mr. rahall, the democrat leader of the transportation committee. he and i were respectively

chosen to lead the committee and i've tried to do my best in the last year plus several months to work with him in meeting our responsibilities. and we have done some important things. we passed the five-year stalled f.a.a. bill and we did it without tax increases, without earmarks, and with a good plan for the future that will put people to work in an area, the aviation industry, that accounts for 10% of our economic activity in the country. let me say in regard to the chair, former chair of the highway subcommittee, i believe, mr. defazio, and he was the ranking member at 9:when the good lord put us both -- 9/11 when the good lord put us both

responsible for the avingsation system after the horrendous attack by terrorists on our country and on the aviation system. and we did that together. i came into this position after 18 years, my predecessor, mr. oberstar, who i enjoyed so much working with, the distinguished leader from the other side, learned quite a bit from mr. oberstar and others, mr. shuster came before me, a whole host of great leaders in the committee, mr. mineta, my first chair, and i tried to learn from all of them and not make mistakes and do the best thing for the committee and for -- not for myself -- my self interests but in the interests of the american people. because that's what we're sent here for, is to help the american people. what a crisis after 9/11, we came together. we have a crisis now.

we have millions of americans who don't have jobs, who don't have work. i supported the bill, i -- mr. oberstar waited 32 years to become chairman. i was elected after 18 years by my colleagues. he had his bill pretty much together. i didn't have a bill. so i first went to mr. rahall's district, the ranking member held the first hearing on this legislation in west virginia where i'd never been and i wouldn't mind going back and everybody there was nice to me and committed then, went across the country, did a record number of hearings, as i said, bipartisan, bicameral, with mrs. boxer who i hope to complete this legislation and with other leaders and workers. here you can't do it yourself. you really can't. you might think you can but you can't. so i have taken everybody's good ideas and please don't say that i wasn't bipartisan.

we took every amendment, 100 democrat amendments, i don't know anyone that's done that, we sat there until 3:00 in the morning, what was it? 16-hour markup, 18-hour? and we passed 20-some of their amendments. it's true, this is difficult. i don't have earmarks like the previous chairman had. the last bill had 6,300 earmarks. you can get the bill done quickly but even then it took them two years. i've been here for 14 months leading the committee and today we will take this to conference and to answer your question, not only will i sign the letter, i will draft the letter asking expeditious, going to conference in appointment of conferees. in addition i'll ask our chair, mr. duncan, to sign that letter and i hope you'll join me and i thank you for offering that. so we can get the people's work done. you know, i look back and i see the missed opportunities.

when mr. lahood came into mr. oberstar and i and turned down a six-year bill -- i didn't like everything that mr. oberstar prepared, i probably would have had to hold my nose and vote for it but i told him, in the interest of the country, of the american people, we need to move forward and i was supportive of getting the ball to the conference and we could work out the details. i wasn't afforded all that opportunity in this process and i'm saddened a bit about that because i have tried to work in good faith. but now the american people are calling on us, stop the bickering, stop the bologna. get people to work. the american people are hurting. and then again, the pain at the pump. you know, i've seen people when i've been home taking out a few dollars at a time, trying to pay that gas bill. and sometimes i think people -- i've seen people buy $5 worth of gas and it breaks my heart that they can barely make it back and forth.

i saw a waitress telling me how difficult it was for her to get to work because she couldn't afford it. but that's why they sent us here, is to get this job done. and we need to get this job done . so i think on behalf of the american people we need to continue the process. we've been down several roads and some of those had some bumps and some of them had some dead ends but let's hope that this has a path to lower energy costs , this has a path to building this country's infrastructure, which is so important for what the business of this country is. and the business of this country is business. it wasn't big government. so we can d i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as

read. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in house report 112-446. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable by the time specified in a report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shath shall not be subject to any -- shall not be subject to any amendments and shall not be subject for demand of the division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-446. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. boustany: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-446 offered by mr. boustany of

louisiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 619, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. boustany, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. chairman. in 1986 congress created the harbor maintenance trust fund and the harbor maintenance tax. a dedicated user fee to provide a steady revenue source for the army corps of engineers to carry out dredging of our critical navigation channels, to meet their authorized specifications with regard to depth and width. in the year 2011, the harbor maintenance tax that was collected was $1.4 billion. but it was slightly over half of that was directed to the intended purpose, the operations and maintenance purposes. yet, less than 35% of our top nation's harbors and ports are dredged adequately. this is hurting american competitiveness, it's hurting american exports, it's hurting

american commerce. and, frankly, as the ways and means oversight subcommittee chairman, i find this an egregious abuse of this tax. my amendment basically does this. it basically ties the harbor maintenance tax revenue receipts to expenditures. all funds collected shall be utilized for the purposes that they were intended. and that is maintenance of our nation's ports and harbors. mr. chairman, in january, 2012, alone, five ships ran aground in the lower mississippi river, our nation's largest export artery. this funding is critical to prevent restrictions which have negatively affected our commerce. it's critical for expanding exports and it's critical in its support for american exploration and production of american energy. furthermore, the congressional budget office does not issue a score on this. it doesn't add one penny to the

deficit. this amendment is critical for american competitiveness, it gives the house the strength in hand going into conference with the senate, as i look forward to continuing to find alternative ways to enforce that these funds are dedicated swiftly and solely for the intended purpose and that is for port and waterways maintenance. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, although not in opposition, i claim the time, five minutes, i ask unanimous consent to claim that time. the chair: the gentleman controls five minutes. mr. rahall: i recognize the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, for one minute. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman. i've long supported the change -- changing the law so that the funds collected for harbor maintenance are spent on harbor maintenance. they're spent aye all across the country -- they're spent all across the country on a whole range of things except harbor maintenance. i have jetties failing in the bay in oregon, a jetty failing at the mouth of the columbia

river, i have ports that are shoring in, that can't afford the dredging. i don't blame the corps because they've been shorted in the budget process. they have a $40 billion backlog of critical projects. this will help them focus their energies on some other critical projects by giving them adequate funds to do the dredging, to rebuild the jetties and to do the other work to maintain our locks and channels that they need to do. so this is long overdue and i strongly support the amendment. mr. rahall: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. gibbs, the chairman of the subcommittee on energy and water. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gibbs: thank you, mr. chairman. congress has been neglecting our nation's dredgeries for far too long. 95% of our nation's commerce goes through our nation's ports. despite the fact that the fund has raised money, congress has

only been incorps rating some of that annually. this isn't right. i'm a firm believe that are trust funds should be used for the intended purpose, to dredge the harbors. in response to congressman boustany, he introduced h.r. 104, the realize america's maritime promise or ramp act. this legislation of which i was probably the 100th co-sponsor, simply ties the harbor maintenance trust fund revenue to expenditures. while this amendment is slightly modified from h.r. 1 -- h.r. 104, it would require that the funds equal the level of receipts plus interest credited to the trust fund for that fiscal year. that time when the president proposes to double our exports and we look to grow our nation's economy, we cannot sit back and continue to watch our nation's waterborne infrastructure system deteriorate. i urge support of this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott. the chair: the gentleman from washington is -- has one minute.

mr. mcdermott: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of my friend, mr. boustany's, amendment. i think it's a good step forward, spending all the money that's in the catch that we take in -- cash that we take -- cache that we take in is in the best interest of maintaining our harbors but i think we need to take another step aped hope i can get mr. -- and i hope i can get mr. boustany and others to help. we need a solution that helps all our ports. those on the west coast, those in pennsylvania, those in massachusetts, pay the tax, we collect $20 on every can that comes across the doc, -- dock and we don't see a penny because we don't dredge. we have a 750-foot draft but we do have problems with our sea wall. we have big infrastructure needs all across and nearly half the money that's raised never is spent in the port where it is raised. now, we compete with international ports, we compete with vancouver and the canadians are putting in a port at prince

rupert and we need to maintain our ports to be competitive in this very, very competitive industry. we have a good geographic location, we're close to asia, but they're going other places because they've got better ports. and that's our issue and we'd like to have some money later on. thank you very much. i support the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: mr. chairman, i now yield one minute to my friend from louisiana, mr. scalise. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my friend from southwest louisiana for bringing this amendment forward and as a proud co-sponsor of the ramp ability i support this legislation -- act i support this legislation because what we're trying to say here is that you have people who have been paying into this trust fund, it's been there for years and people have been paying into it and the intention all along was that money would be used to dredge our waterways and to upgrade our locks and to keep our infrastructure along our waterways up to date so that we can continue moving commerce, not only throughout this

country, but to be able to export and to be able to get commerce through to other countries. and the panama canal's getting ready to come online in 2013, even deeper vessels are going to be coming through. that means we've got to be able to meet that demand otherwise we're going to lose that business to foreign nations and yet here you have the harbor maintenance trust fund and that money's not even being used for its intended purpose. we have to ensure that the fund cannot be raided for other government spending. and that's what this amendment does. it's something that will help us create jobs and increase competitiveness of our workers and it will keep that promise that's been made to those people who have been paying billions of dollars into this fund and yet that fund hasn't been used properly. so i support the amendment, urge its passage and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. welch. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for with -- for one minute. mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the amendment as the lead co-sponsor of mr. boustany and the ramp act, h.r. 104, that had approximately over 150

co-sponsors on both sides of the aisle, people from all corners of the country. this really should be a measure that we should move forward on and fully fund as well as with the language that again mr. boustany crafted to offer here today. there are frankly other reasons why we call this snap bill, to restore america's maritime promise act, again, we are a great maritime nation. our national defense requires having a strong navy that can navigate all along the coast and where i'm from the state of connecticut, one needs to be dredged out year and year out. like anyone else, it depends on the coreness of the army corps of engineers. this affects our economy, our exports and also our national defense and i support this measure and i applaud the gentleman for bringing it forward. i yield back to mr. rahall. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. scalise: i'm pleased to

yield time to mr. upton -- mr. boustany: i'm pleased to yield to mr. upton for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. upton: thank you, mr. chairman, mr. speaker. this is a highway infrastructure bill which means this is a jobs bill and i commend mr. boustany to add this as an amendment to this bill. i represent the great lakes. we have a number of commercial as well as recreational harbors, but throughout the season we're bringing sand, gravel, cement, salt for the winter into our commercial ports, sadly we've had a number of ports close this year in west michigan where those lake carriers have not been able to get in because they need to be dredged. this bill allows the great lakes harbors to be dredged with its passage. the difference is this -- on a lake carrier it's about 600 gallons per ton -- 600 miles

per gallon per ton of cargo that you can ship on a lake carrier rather than spending four cents or five cents for diesel fuel per mile per truck. and the difference just for my district is you can bring this from the u.p. and other parts of lake michigan rather than trucking it for hundreds of miles to the closest port. this is a good bill, good amendment. i'm glad to support it. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana's time is up and the gentleman from west virginia has two minutes. mr. rahall: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from louisiana, mr. richmond, and commend him for his hard work on this legislation. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. richmond: thank you. i join my colleagues from louisiana in supporting this critical amendment. what i would add is that we've talked about doubling our exports over the next four or five years and this is a critical piece to allow us to do it. what we realize here in america is we only make up 5% of the consumers in the world, and we

have to make sure that our manufacturers, that our farmers and that our citizens can get their goods to the other 95% so that we can continue to build a robust economy. this allows us to reduce the cost of our goods around the world because we can now ship more goods to market. it's a step in the right direction, and if you look at the fact that only two out of our 10 largest sea ports that are dredged to their authorized depth it continues to move us in the right direction so we can now focus on adequately getting to and the goal of getting to a depth of 55 feet which other progressive countries are getting to we have to stay competitive, we have to continue to invest in this country. this gives us the best return on our investment. i commend him for bringing this amendment. i support it. i would urge my colleagues to vote for it. and i'd yield back to our ranking member of the transportation committee, mr. rahall. mr. rahall: that you are time has expired? -- their time has expired?

the chair: yes, the gentleman from louisiana's time has expired. mr. boustany: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to give the gentleman from michigan a minute to speak on this. the chair: the unanimous request must be equal on both sides. mr. rahall: yes. mr. boustany: yes. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana has one minute. mr. boustany: i would ask the gentleman if he would close for us. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> that you are, mr. speaker. i have a radical idea. a radical idea for the people of america. let's use harbor main assistance trust funds for harbor maintenance. for 25 years we've been robbing peter to pay paul, but in reality that $7 billion that we have taken away from that has

really been robbing places like a place in michigan where a ship ran aground and had to get towed off. we have 11 harbors in the second district. hundreds in the great lakes and countless in the nation on both the coasts and in the gulf gulf. enough money has been collected every year to pay for all of this maintenance that has to happen but unfortunately congress has been skimming it to help pay for other programs. it's time we act. i appreciate my friend from louisiana, mr. boustany, his leadership with the ramp act and mr. upton, chairman upton from michigan in loading us in the great lakes. but we know this is the right thing to do for america and for our transportation needs, our infrastructure needs, our great lakes need it, the coasts need it, our harbors need it. mr. huizenga: our economies need it to happen. i thank you and i strongly support this amendment today. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i yield one minute of my final two minutes to the distinguish gentleman from

massachusetts, a member of the ways and means committee, mr. neal. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. neal: everybody has heard from glouster, boston, the mayflower. i want to be supportive of mr. boustany's amendment today. today, massachusetts sea ports continue to play an important role. the port of boston's overall activities supports 34,000 jobs, it contributes more than $2 billion to the local, regional and national economies. america's ports provide a gateway to international trade by facilitating the transport of cargo around the world. yet, many ports around the country, including those in massachusetts, are in need of maintenance. in fact the u.s. army corps of engineers that the dimensions at the 59 ports are available less tha5% of the time. even though users of our nation's waterways are paying significant amounts of money into the trust fund to support these ports, these are not

being spent on the trust fund and our trust fund has a surplus. this amendment makes a good deal of sense. we held a hearing on the ways and means select revenue committee and there was bipartisan support for his legislation. i urge support for mr. boustany's amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, as a representative of the great sea faring state of wmb, i rise in support of the gentleman's legislation as well. but really ports are important to my state. we export a great deal of coal of my district through norfolk, port of baltimore. so harbors and ports are important for west virginia and for the movement of our coal from the state to its world customers. i want to commend the gentleman from louisiana, mr. boustany, as well, for the tremendous work he's done on this legislation. we have collecting far more resources in the harbor maintenance trust fund than we've transferred to the army corps of engineers for their o&m. we are expected to have over

$800 billion by the end of this year. i want -- however, in my view, this amendment does not go far enough because it strips out any enforcement mechanism should this language be ignored. in addition, the language also ignores concerns expressed by our committee colleague, the ranking member of the subcommittee on water and resources and environment, mr. bishop of new york, on ensuring an equitable distribution of trust fund dollars between our nation's large, mid sized and small commercial harbors. i look forward to working on these critical issues. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider

amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-446. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio -- wisconsin rise? mr. ribble: mr. chairman, amendment at the desk -- i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-446 offered by mr. ribble of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to the house resolution 619, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ribble, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ribble: thank you, mr. chairman. the folders that i'm holding here represent our dysfunctional federal bureaucracy. they provide a stark example of the burdensome red tape that a wisconsin business must go through just to get an approval on a single project. mr. chairman, in this folder is when the county controls a

project. this folder is when the state controls the project. mr. chairman, this folder is when the federal government controls the project. while these examples aren't specifically for a highway project, they're emblematic of what our federal government imposes on northern wisconsin and across the nafplgtse my amendment today will smooth the road for infrastructure projects by reducing the redundant permitting requirements that prevent us from rebuilding our roads and bridges across this country. my amendment includes many of the practical reforms that i and my colleagues on the transportation committee have championed under the chairman mica's leadership. today the average life span of a construction project is 15 years. but only five of those years involve actual on-the-ground construction. let me say that again. at least 10 years of a project are not spent building anyone but instead are used filling

thousands of folders like these are millions of pages of paperwork. my amendment will expedite this process. in some cases we can cut this timeline in half allowing the federal and state agencies work together, how is that for an idea, to work together on the review and permitting process? my amendment sets hard deadlines to improve infrastructure projects not longer leaving them in limbo. there has been a lot of talk about shovel-ready projects in recent years. well, my amendment will help states, municipalities and contractors to put their pencils down and, mr. chairman, pick the shovels up. that's exactly what we need. at a time when our economy is struggling, the federal government needs to stop putting up roadblocks to job creation and figure out ways to make things easier and less costly. my amendment would do just that. it also exempts certain unplanned emergencies from some of the review processes. when a state or city is hit by tajing storms or unexpect -- hit by damaging storms or unexpected flooding, we should

not subject our communities to an endless permitting process that may further harm their quality of life. mr. speaker, the bill before us today is not perfect but then again no bill ever is. however, my amendment will put us on the road to reforming how we build and maintain our infrastructure throughout this country and i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rahall: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman. the gentleman my -- from wisconsin -- if he could pay attention. i'm going to ask him a question. sir, hello, hi. over here. hi. ok. i do have a question about your amendment. you might remember in committee that i managed to convince the majority to strip a provision in the underlying bill that would have waived all laws at the discretion of the president of the united states to do

projects of national -- of national competitiveness. mr. ribble: will the gentleman yield? mr. defazio: you don't have that and i appreciate that. there is -- and yours on page -- from the original bill, you took this language. the secretary shall treat an activity carried out under title 23, united states code, or project within a right of way as a class of action categorycally excluded from the requirements relating to environmental assessments. that means all federal highway projects would be exempt from any environmental review. don't you think that's a little over the top? that's a little more than streamlining it. that's not existing rights of way. that's build an eight-lane road and no environmental review. don't you think -- that might be a little bit over the edge? mr. ribble: will the gentleman yield? this is the right of way, though. mr. defazio: it says or a project within a right of way.

i think you have at least a drafting problem here, if not an intentional problem. this exempts any project under title 23 which means a brand new highway, eight, 12, 15 lanes wide and null acquired right of way with no environmental review. mr. ribble: will the gentleman yield? mr. defazio: yes. mr. ribble: i have full confidence in your state's environmental protection and i have full confidence in the states. mr. defazio: reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. i don't have confidence in a lot of people in a lot of states and i don't think the american people deserve -- and i think the american people deserve some protection. particularly when it comes to transit projects and like what we have done with california. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. defazio: 30 seconds. mr. rahall: 30 seconds. mr. defazio: if we let the

states decide whether or not there will be any environmental review of a major new highway project is extraordinary to me. using federal money. i mean, if they want to use the state money and they want to say there are no laws that apply and we are going to build this chinese method and here comes the bulldozer, get out of the way, get out of your house, here it comes, fine. if states are like that and they do it with their own money, then people within the states can do it. constructing major new highways with no review, i think that's a little over the top. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ribble: i'd like to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 90 seconds. mr. shuster: i thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him on his amendment. i think it's a great amendment. as a freshman you've done tremendous work on the committee and you've been in washington a year and a half and yet you brought a shovel here. that shovel shovels more than just dirt. it shovels other stuff that happens here in washington and

it's time we clear some of that out to be able to streamline building roads and highways in this country and that's what your amendment does. it cuts bureaucratic red tape, allows the federal agencies to review transportation projects concurrently which is extremely important. it delegates project approval authority to the state. it establishes hard deadlines to federal agencies to permit. it will have exclusions on approval process which is faster, smoother and is a standard process. so the environmental protections do remain in place. i disagree with the gentleman from oregon. i have all the confidence in the world what the gentleman has in his amendment here will allow just what's in the right of way. that's what we interpreted and i believe that's what the states will interpret it so i have all the confident that this amendment is properly prepared and we are going to pass it here on the floor today. these are practical reforms. time is money and anybody that's been in business knows time is money and that's what these

forms are going to do, reduce the time which will reduce the cost to get highways and bridges built in this country. i commend the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ribble, on his excellent work and his work on this commitment, also the chairman for his tireless efforts in bringing this -- the extension to the floor. as we move into conference i'm confident we're going to come up with something theaths that's better than what we've seen from the other side. i thank the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. while i strongly support the efficient review of projects to ensure a timely project delivery, i believe it is possible to balance these needs with adequate opportunity for public input. unfortunately the provisions in the ribble amendment are far beyond balanced. and would severely limit public input into surface transportation project decisions. in effect, the amendment places a road block on public participation in reviewing transportation projects by limiting and in certain cases outright waiving nepa.

that goes far beyond streamlining. locking -- blocking the public out of the decision making project is steamrolling our constituents and local governments. the most galling aspect of this amendment is that it would completely exempt any and all highway project where the federal share of the cost is less than $10 million or 15% of the project costs from the requirements to provide public participation and an analysis of alternatives in the project decision making process. proponents of the amendment argue that nepa and other laws are causing years of project delays. simply not true. according to the u.s. department of transportation, the vast majority of projects delivered both by the federal highway administration and the f.t.a., 96% to be exact, already go through minimal nepa review, meaning that all nepa compliance is completed within 24 months to six months. ironically this amendment could increase those delays by excluding the public from participation in the project

review process and increasing the likelihood of public opposition to a project, leading to greater delays in project delivery. now, many of us know the public, if they're locked out of a decision making process or review process in which they feel they have a legitimate right to participate, where they are they going to go? they're going to go to the courts and sue. does the gentleman think the judicial process when you have to face lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit is going to be streamlining the process? i think not. we're looking at a longer process there than any environmental review would ever entail. again, while i strongly support sufficient review, efficient review and sufficient refew of projects to ensure a -- review of projects to ensure a timely delivery, this amendment goes too far, it undermining public participation in local decisions and could create greater problems and i would urge the defeat of the gentleman's amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ribble: thank you, mr. chairman. i do want to thank the ranking member. we do have a disease agreement

and disagreements happen in this chamber a lot but anyone who has traveled our roads, highways, trying to cross bridges that have been falling apart, that are filled with pot holes, that have needed repairs for sometimes decades, recognize the real cost and real cause of the delay. mr. chairman, i would note that my amendment in no way eliminates nepa or the need for an environmental review to occur. however, our current process reduces redundant submissions and approvals can render a road project obsolete before the ground's ever been broken. my amendment merely ensures that federal and state governments get to actually work together in doing the review. they get to work together to do this. and unlike others, i have full confidence in the people that live in the states whereby this work is going to be done. they're the neighbors of these road projects. they're the ones that swim in the lakes and streams and drink the water, breathe the air. they're the ones that live there. and they ought to have more say on how these projects are

completed and we can actually get more projects done because of this and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. rahall: request a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further providedings on the amendment offered by -- proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-446. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. mckinley: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-446 offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 619, the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mckinley: mr. chairman, mr. speaker, thank you. and i want to thank chairman mica and the leadership for working with our office to allow this amendment to proceed. and to be offered. just a reminder, this issue passed the house on a 2-1 vote back last october. and previously on a continuing resolution. the legislation has had strong bipartisan support with numbers of democrats voting in favor. so we're not here to rehash those old fights. what we're here to do is discuss how fly ash pertains to maximizing funds for our roads and our bridges and our construction projects. and protecting hundreds of thousands of jobs all across

america. there are those who don't see the correlation between coal ash and concrete. even though it's been an integral part of concrete in america for over 80 years. quite frankly upwards of 316,000 jobs are at stake with this amendment. and over $100 billion in roads, bridges and infrastructure projects if coal ash is not recycled into concrete. keep in mind, 60 million tons of fly ash are recycled annually. let's read some quotes from some of the individuals that have talked about, for the american road and transportation builders association with the $100 billion. here's from the homebuilders association, removing coal ash from the supply chain would increase the price of concrete by an average of 10%. fly ash replaces concrete pipe,

replaces 15 million tons of cement in its use. look at what the administration 's agencies are talking about. under the department of interior, department of transportation, the department of transportation -- interior, we can curve industry leaders who feel strongly that if fly ash is designated a hazardous waste, it will no longer be used in concrete. here from the same department, fly ash, approximately 20% to 50% less than the cost of concrete. fly ash is a valuable byproduct in transportation, used in highway facilities, it's vital component of concrete and is important for the number of other infrastructure uses. then the last, cement is more costly than fly ash. in some areas it is as much as twice the cost. so what did the e.p.a. say? their own statement.

one ton of fly ash used as a replacement for cement replaces the equivalent of nearly two months of an automobile's carbon dioxide emissions. one ton of fly ash saves enough energy to provide electricity to an average american home for nearly 20 days. coal ash leads to better road performance. mr. speaker, let's be honest. what we're relating to here is about the use of fly ash in concrete that's been for over 80 years. anyone opposing this legislation clearly has an agenda. that agenda is anti-coal. so that's why i'm asking my colleagues to join me today in supporting in this amendment once again and protecting 316,000 jobs and maximizing the highway funds available for upgrading our roads and bridges

all across america. thank you, mr. speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? mr. rahall: i ask unanimous consent, although in support of the amendment, to claim time in opposition to it. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. rahall: i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. waxman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. waxman: i rise in opposition to the amendment. president obama's already threatened to veto this legislation because it circumvents the longstanding process for reviewing and potentially dangerous keystone x.l. pipeline, the mckinley amendment would add another extraneous provision to the underlying bill. this amendment would prevent e.p.a. from regulating toxic coal ash and would put our nation's drinking water and public health at greater risk. on december 22, 2008, a coal ash

empowerment in tennessee burst, releasing 5.4 million cuic yards of toxic sludge blanketing a river and the surrounding land and creating a superfund site that could cause up to 1.2 -- $1.2 billion to clean up. at hearings in the energy and commerce committee, we heard testimony about the devastating impacts contamination from coal combustion wastes can cause. we learned of contaminated drinking water supplies and ruined property values. we learned that in proper disposal of coal ash can both present catastrophic risks for ruptures of containment structures and cause cancer and other illnesses from long-term exposure to leaking chemicals. two years ago e.p.a. proposed a regulation to ensure stronger oversight of coal ash empowerments in order to prevent disasters like the ones at kingston and to protect groundwater and drinking water

from the threat of contamination. the agency had proposed two alternatives for regulating coal combustion residuals. one proposal was to regulate these wastes under subtitle c of the resources conservation recovery act or hazardous waste. the other proposal was to regulate under subtitle d as a nonhazard out solid waste. under both proposals, there would be a minimum federal standard, developed to protect human health and the environment. those standards would address wet environments like in kingston and it would also ensure that basic controls like the use of groundwater monitoring and dust control meet a minimum level of effectiveness . but this amendment blocks both e.p.a. proposals. it replaces those proposals with an ineffective program that will not ensure the safe disposal of

coal ash, won't protect the public health and won't protect the environment. we could and we should do better. in each of our environmental laws, congress has always established a legal standard when delegating programs to the states. these standards are the yard sticks by which it was determined whether a state's efforts measure up. they ensure a minimum level of effort and protection throughout the nation. this approach has worked well because it prevents a race to the bottom by the states. but this legislation doesn't include any legal standard. i ask the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. waxman: 30 additional seconds? mr. rahall: i yield 30 dirnl seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. waxman: this legislation does not include any legal standard to establish a minimum level of safety and to the extent new safety requirements are established, nearly all of them can be waived at a state's

discretion. the legislation appears to create a program but the decision about whether or not to go forward is one that will be at the state discretion. the result will inevitably be uneven and inconsistent rules between the states. some will do a good job, others won't. if this legislation is adopted, no one should be fooled. this bill won't protect these sites. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from west virginia. . the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, just a quick couple observations. we have been using fly ash concrete for over 80 years -- mr. mckinley: mr. speaker, just a quick couple observations. we have been using fly ash concrete for over 80 years. so i'm going to be -- in closing, i don't know whether time-wise -- and i also want to thank my colleague from west

virginia for sponsoring this legislation, co-sponsoring this legislation, and i hope will continue to help us in providing bipartisan support in protecting jobs. how much time do i have left? the chair: you have a minute and a quarter. mr. mckinley: i am going to yield that to the chairman of the committee for the purpose of closing. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 75 seconds. mr. upton: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection. mr. upton: i would just like to remind the house that this amendment is the same bill that the house passed last year with a vote of 267-144. we moved this through regular order, committee hearing,

markup. we passed this in a bipartisan manner. it requires groundwater monitoring and requires that states monitor for the same constituents that e.p.a. identified as being important for the regulation of coal ash. the amendment also requires that states require liners for new structures and establishes appropriate controls on dust. this amendment -- for two years e.p.a. has been considering regulating coal ash. this amendment would -- this bill would allow the safe use of coal ash in such products as concrete, wall board, roofing shingles. as the gentleman from west virginia said, it saves 316,000 jobs. this is the highway and infrastructure bill. it is a jobs bill. this saves american jobs. and it is very important that

the house continue to support the mckinley amendment. whether it be a free-standing bill as we did last year -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. upton: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, back in 1980, former representative tom bevel of alabama and myself required e.p.a. to study and then determine how to regulate coal ash with an amendment. that was in 1980. today, 32 years later, e.p.a. has not done so in a final manner. so i believe it is completely appropriate to place this authority within the hands of the state as a pending amendment by the gentleman from west virginia would clearly do. in the wake of the 2008 coal waste disaster at a facility, i introduced legislation to strengthen the coal ash. i believe there is ways to gain

enactment of h.r. 3273 which this amendment reflect. the bill has passed the house and sent to the other body where senators are working to achieve a bipartisan agreement. i will however vote for this amendment because i have long supported many of the concepts embodied in it including active -- reuse of coal ash for activities like road building which my colleague from west virginia has already he demonstrated. -- has already demonstrated. i ask my colleagues to support this and praise the gentleman from west virginia for his consistency because he came to me early on to have this introduced in committee. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in the house report 112-446, by the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ribble, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-446 offered by mr. ribble of wisconsin. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. 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 u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on -- the chair: on the vote, the yeas are 265, the nays are 165rk the amendment is adopt. there being no further amendments, under the rule the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports the committee has had under consideration h r. 4348 and pursuant to house resolution 619 reports the bill back to the house with sundry

amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the chairman will put them in gross. the question is on the adoption of the eafments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to provide extension of federal aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier transit and other programs under the highway trust fund under a multi-year law re-authorizing such programs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order.

for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. polis: i am opposed in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. polis of colorado moves to report the same back to the house with the following amendments, add the following and conform the table of contents acordingly, section 112, prohibition against construction of highways in foreign countries, a in general, none of the funds made available under this act may be use nerd construction of a highway outside of a state as defined in section 101a of title 23 united states code or a territory as defined in section 215-a of that title. b, removal of existing

authorities to use highway trust fund revenues to construct a highway in a foreign country. one, repeal, section 218 of 23 united states code and the item relating to that section, analysis for chapter two of that title are repealed. two, n.h.s. appropriations, section 104b-1-a of section 24 of united states code is preceded by striking $30 million and all that follows through highway. section c, rescission of the unobligated balances of funds made available for the alaska highway under section 104-b-1-a of title 24-b of the united states code, $12,234,000 of the money is rescinded. prohibition on funning for corridor earmark that limits funding for other a.r.c. states, a, system mileage, not withstand

anything other provision of law, any corridor designation that increases the authorized mileage of the highway system above $3,325 miles shall no longer be effective, b, revision of cost to complete estimate, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act, the appalachian regional commission shall revise the cost to complete estimate for the appalachian development highway system under section 145-0-1 title 40 of united states code to reflect the elimination of the corridor designation under subsection a. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members will please take their conversations from the floor. the credit from colorado is recognized for five minutes. mr. polis: thank you, mr.

speaker. mr. speaker, usually when something is killed, it stays dead. but just like a zombie movie, some earmarks refuse to die and return to life as wasteful deficit spending. that's what happened with this bill and what my simple, commonsense amendment corrects. this congress was supposed to eliminate earmarks but zombie earmarks from prior sections keep appearing and reappearing. republicans are taking earmarks from previous sessions and calling them something else. is that our new spending plan? at a time when pe we face a massive national deficit and have limited resources to address our nation's transportation needs, the pending measure provides billions of dollars for the construction of the alabama porkway and the canadian baconway. mr. speaker, even as many in congress have sworn off earmarks this legislation continues funding for the alabama oporkway a 65-mile, six-lane beltway zombie earmark, a massive

highway that surrounds the city of birmingham, costing taxpayers billions. in fact, just last year, an article in the "birmingham news" cited how cost estimates have soared from $3.4 billion to $7.4 billion before construction. costs have soared and now alabama wants a boilout for the zombie highway. an earmark and a bailout. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman deserves to be heard. the gentleman may continue. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i guess the more washington changes, the more it stays the same. the good news is, mr. speaker work this amendment i'm calling out this bailout and giving members on both sides of the aisle the opportunity to stop the bailout of the alabama porkway. in 2004, republican member of congress added a provision that had not been included in either the house or senate bill behind

closed doors to an appropriations bill adding a new 65-mile, six-lane birmingham beltway to the development system this earmark is unprecedenteded in the appalachian region's more than 45-year history. alabama went from receiving 6.2% of highway funds to 25% in one fell swoop. >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is correct. if members would please refrain from having conversations on the floor. the gentleman may continue. mr. polis: it was good for the alabama porkway but bad for taxpayers everywhere and worthy projects across appalachia. my amendment strikes the windfall bailout and a windfall that comes at the expense of other states. the money comes from projects that would have been funded in georgia, kentucky, maryland,

mississippi, new york, north carolina, ohio, south carolina, virgia, tennsee, and west virginia. even many alabamans understand that that this is a -- that this is a waste of federal dollars. if alabamans want to build a pork rind around birmingham, that's fine, but do it with their on money. many abamans agree, one in "the birmingham news" said,spen mantra of the birmingham beltway state and local government. another said, i'm more concerned about the flagrant disregard for the damage by the beltway. it goes right through the farm of adele turner. the beltline goes through her farm that she and her husband have had since 19506789 big, federal deficit spending, a big

beltway, a big porkway, right through her farm. amendment also prohibits construction of highways in foreign countries which this bill contains. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be -- the house will be in order. the gentleman may continue. >> the house is still not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. if members will please refrain from conversations on the floor. the gentleman may continue. mr. polis: mr. speaker, the bill before us provides gas tax funds , $30 million a year, for a 325-mile canadian baconway, right through the yukon out of the pocket of american families into the canadian baconway.

the next time my colleagues are at home in a gas station talking to constituents, i encourage them to talk to constituents if they think our gas tax dollars should be used to build a 325 mill highway in canada or any foreign country. this isn't an anti-canada amendment. i don't think canada or mexico should build highways in the united states. but this amendment gives the member a choice to redied, do we want to build highways in canada or reduce our deficit. if we want to make sure there's no precedent -- if you want to engage in more deficit spending to build highways through the yukon, vote no. thinkmy amendment would reduce the federal deficit by over $12 million. mr. speakering on march 2 of 2011, i offered an amendment to stop federal taxpayer money from funding the infamous bridge to nowhere. mr. mica gave a response to it,

saying it was smoke and mirrors he said it's trying to mislead the house and it's smoke and mir ross. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman yields back. mr. polis: this is not smoke and mirrors. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman will suspend, the gentleman will suspend, the gentleman will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. mica: i'd clike to claim the time in -- i'd like to claim the time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mica: i'll be very brief. the gentleman said that i said before there had been smoke and mirrors and once again we have smoke and mirrors. every opportunity was given to the other side. my committee sat for some 18 hours, they never brought this issue up. we heard over 100 democrat amendments. that was now the brought up in one of the single 00 amendments proposed to the committee. but this is an obstruction to

getting people to working, to getting our infrastructure for this country built. we need to vote down this motion to recommit and let's move forward in getting america building its infrastructure and getting people to work and affordable energy to people that can't even afford to fill up their gas tank today. i've had it with these delays. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. mr. jackson: point of order before you do that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may state his -- the house will be in order. the gentleman may state his point of order. mr. jackson: mr. speaker, i'd like to raise a point of order. in the future when a member is speaking and someone asks for order, does the clock stop? or does the clock continue while they're asking for order in the house? the speaker pro tempore: time spent obtaining order is not charged to those speaking. mr. jackson: it's not charged against the speaker?

the speaker pro tempore: correct. mr. jackson: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. mr. polis: mr. speaker, on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this is a 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit and will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill if ordered and the motion to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2453. 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 speaker pro tempore: the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. podsepose. the ayes have it. the gentleman from florida. >> i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise.

a sufficient number having risen a rored vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-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 293rk the yeas are 127. the bill is passed. without objection the motion is to the reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished busine