Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. This is a very, very dramatic map. The colors indicate gasoline prices across America as of last week by county. As you can see, the entire west coast of the United States is in bright red. Now we often hear from the oil and gas industry that prices are set internationally. This is an international market. You have to understand that. Well, that's kind of interesting. Crude oil prices are down dramatically. U.S. production of crude is up a million-and-a-half barrels a day. We're exporting gasoline from the United States of America. But somehow we're missing that international market on the west coast. We're being price gouged on the west coast of the United States through a series of rather interesting or perhaps suspicious circumstances. The largest refinery in Washington State, Cherry Point, experienced a fire in February, and it's been quite a bit of time in recovery. It's been delayed several times. It's now coming back online. But given the fact that it was known that the largest refinery in the Northwest was offline, one would think that other refineries in California would endeavor to stay online, particularly as we begin the summer driving season. Well, no, actually not, because they had to do routine maintenance. So five refineries in California, just before Memorial Day weekend in May, decided that it was time for routine maintenance. Then, suddenly we had a shortage. Well, actually we didn't have a shortage. There were no gas stations with yellow flags. There were no gas stations with little red flags. No one was going without gasoline, but a shortage was declared by the industry and the price was jacked up. So while the rest of the country has seen prices come down, following the international markets, the price on the west coast has gone up, skyrocketing last week 13 cents for a gallon of regular. In one week it went up. It dropped a penny yesterday. All right. We're on the way down. It seems it always goes down a lot slower than it goes up. Kind of interesting. So I contacted the President's working group for oil price and market manipulation, and my inquiry has been referred to various departments within the government, including the Justice Department, to look at antitrust implications; the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and others, to look at potential market manipulation. So I just thought in light of the fact that there may have been--may have been--some market manipulation here and perhaps at other times in the past, that we should just have a simple statement of fact on behalf of the United States House of Representatives. No oil or gas company convicted of antitrust violations should be able to access any of the $500 million in the Fossil Energy Research and Development section. That is to say, taxpayers of the United States should not gift money to oil and gas companies that have been convicted of price-gouging the taxpayers of the United States of America. Pretty simple. I mean, I have even greater concerns over that account; and I joined with 102 Republicans, last night, and 36 Democrats in voting to delete the $500 million for fossil energy research and development. I think the industry can fund it on its own. And I would hope at least those 102 Republicans last night who voted to totally eliminate that account and the 36 Democrats who voted to totally eliminate that account would join with me today to say, well, we didn't eliminate the account, but we're not going to allow anybody convicted of antitrust that is price- gouging American consumers and taxpayers to access these taxpayer dollars to subsidize their private research and development and profits. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, now is not the time to delay or jeopardize the renewal of a job-creating national transportation program by insisting on a deal-breaking provision already rejected by the U.S. Senate. This motion to instruct needlessly puts millions of private sector transportation, manufacturing, engineering, and construction jobs at risk. We desperately need long-term investments in our decrepit and failing transportation system. We need to bring certainty to states and the private sector in transportation project planning. But the continued temporary extensions of transportation authorities as passed by the House of Representatives are costing us jobs. We are getting substantiated reports from the 50 states that they are delaying or even canceling transportation investments and projects for this construction season because of the uncertainty in federal funding. According to AASHTO, seven states will forgo at least 60,000 private sector jobs this construction season. I am certain the number would be more than a 100,000 forgone jobs if all 50 states were considered. And remember, with strong buy American provisions in the bill, these are not just construction jobs. These are manufacturing jobs and sophisticated engineering jobs--jobs we need to keep and continue to create in this country. Unlike the House transportation bill that would keep us limping along with 60-day and 90-day extensions, the Senate transportation bill would provide two years of funding. Instead of forgoing hundreds of thousands of jobs for this construction season alone, the Senate bill would maintain or create millions of jobs and begin making the investments we need to address the 150,000 bridges in need of repair or replacement and the 42 percent of the National Highway System pavement in fair or poor condition--to say nothing of the needed investments to move our transportation system into the 21st Century. The Senate transportation bill also includes a desperately needed one-year extension of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act. This program provides an essential lifeline for more than 700 rural federally forested communities and 9 million schoolchildren across the nation. For Oregon, these payments may mean the difference between keeping criminals in our jails and sheriffs on the road or financial insolvency and the dissolution of county governments. Congress can debate the XL pipeline any day of the week. And we should. Let's have a debate about the route, expedited approval, and environmental reviews. Let's have a debate on energy policies to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, bring down the price of gas for American consumers, and lead to a more secure energy future. But it's telling that Republican leadership has refused to bring a clean XL pipeline bill to the floor of this House. Instead, they insist on attaching it to must-pass legislation to score political points and to try to embarrass the President--these are not serious efforts to legislate. With the national unemployment rate still hovering around 8 percent and the real unemployment rate closer to 15 percent it is absolutely unacceptable that Congress would take any risk of jeopardizing what should be a bipartisan effort to maintain or create millions of private-sector American jobs. I urge my colleagues to reject this motion and to quickly pass a conferenced transportation bill that makes desperately needed investments in our transportation system, creates jobs, and helps ensure rural counties across the nation are able to offer basic government services.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. On July 1, student loan interest rates are set to double on their loans from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. After initially resisting making any adjustment in proposing actual further cuts in student financial aid, the Republicans said, No, wait a minute. We'll bring up a bill. We'll take care of that for 1 year. You just have to eliminate funding for public health and preventive health care. Student loans or preventive health care and public health. They say that is the choice we have to make. We don't have to make that choice. There's a much better choice. If we raised taxes 1 percent on income over $380,000 a year, your taxes would still be lower than in the Clinton era, and we could fund a permanent reduction in financial aid for students. I know at the country club they're not hearing much about people who can't afford to go to college. But I tell you what, for the people in my district and the people I represent, their kids are loading up with debt. It is going to hobble them after they graduate from college. We've got to reduce these rates. We've got to reduce them permanently. Why not ask those who have made it fabulously and earn over $380,000 a year to contribute 1 percent to that cause?

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. There's one agency of the Federal Government that has never been audited--and is unauditable. It happens to be the Department of Defense. Last year, Representative Garrett and I snuck up on them with a little amendment in the appropriations bill to require an audit of the Pentagon. It's not too much to ask when they spend $600 billion a year, none of which they can meaningfully account for according to the GAO. They can't reconcile their books. It was stripped out in the conference committee. Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire got one in the authorization bill. It was stripped out in the conference committee. Now this time they're acting proactively. They're prohibiting us from bringing an amendment to the floor of the House that would require--and we're letting up on them a little bit--that 3 years from now the Department of Defense--that's $1.8 trillion from now--should have to pass an audit. And they're saying no, no, no, no. They can't be required to do an audit until they spend $3.6 trillion in the year 2017. This is an abuse of the American taxpayer and an abuse of our servicemen and -women. The waste that goes on at the Pentagon has to stop. We need a meaningful audit.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. The clock is ticking. Six days from today, an incompetent, ideological Board of Governors in the United States Postal Service intends to close thousands of post offices and processing centers, degrading service and denying access for millions of individual Americans, especially seniors, veterans, small business owners, and others. And what's the reaction of the Republican leadership in the House? Nothing. Silence. We were in session until 1 o'clock in the morning voting on imaginary amendments to a bill that's not going anywhere, but they can't bestir themselves to bring forward a bill to save this critical institution. The Senate has acted. Their bill is not perfect, but it's better than inaction in face of the wrecking crew that is governing our postal services. I urge my colleagues to support my bill, cosponsor my bill, H.R. 3591, put the postal service on a sustainable path toward a 21st century postal service, modernized and self-sufficient. But inaction and indifference will destroy this critical institution.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the House Republicans want to play politics on the issue of doubling the student loans. They say, well, the reduction in student loan interest rates was never supposed to be permanent. Guess what. The Bush tax cuts, which I voted against, for millionaires and billionaires were never supposed to be permanent either, but you're fighting to preserve them every step of the way. We can do one simple thing here. If we raised the tax rate on income over $350,000 only from 35 to 36 percent, we could give millions of students a more affordable education with lower interest rates. Those who have already made it would share a little bit of the burden to help those who want to be the next generation of business leaders and political leaders and scientists for our country. Come on, guys. The millionaires and billionaires, they can take care of themselves. That wasn't supposed to be permanent. Let's help the students.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. In a bitterly divided Congress along partisan lines, I think there is one thing we can all agree upon: America is falling apart. Our Nation's infrastructure, according to two reports from commissions that met during the Bush administration when the Republicans controlled the House, the White House, and the Senate, came to the same conclusion: we are vastly underinvesting in our national transportation infrastructure. We're not even spending enough to bring the Eisenhower-era investments up to a state of good repair: 150,000 bridges need repair or replacement; 40 percent of the pavement on the National Highway System needs to be substantially rebuilt, not just paved over; and a $60 billion to $70 billion backlog on critical capital investments for our legacy transit systems across America. The good news is, if we make these investments, we'll put millions of people to work--and not just construction workers, not just engineers, manufacturing steel for the bridges, manufacturing for light railcars, for streetcars, first Made in America streetcars in 70 years being produced at Oregon Iron Works, and the components sourced from 24 States in the United States of America. We have the strongest buy America requirements in our transportation sector, and I hope that we can agree, as we move forward through this conference, to strengthen those even more so we don't leak these precious tax dollars and jobs overseas like we do in so many other ways. Now, I understand the reluctance of the majority, and they will prevail here today, to say, Let's do the Senate bill now and move on. Let's put people back to work starting next week. But I've got to caution the majority. They will prevail today, but these temporary extensions are costing us jobs. They aren't status quo, let's just extend 90 days and 90 days. We are getting substantiated reports from the 50 States that they are delaying or cancelling transportation investments and projects for this construction season because of the uncertainty about Federal funding. Time is of the essence here. In the northern tier States, we've got to get this bill done before we take--well, we've got a break next week, then we're back, I think, for 7 legislative days, then we've got a break the next week, then we come back for another 7 legislative days, then we've got a 10-day break after that. We've got to squeeze in a little legislative work between these breaks. I believe that if we're determined that we can begin the conference as soon as we are appointed, and we could have this done no later than May 15 before we begin, two breaks from now, another break. So we've got to stop taking breaks and give the American people a break and put them back to work. Make the investments they know we need in our Nation's infrastructure. I urge support for the ranking member's position.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, I don't have confidence in a lot of people in a lot of States and I do think the American people deserve at least some protection. Now, I can understand the impatience with some of the bureaucracy--I share it--particularly when it comes to transit projects and other things and giving States authority, like we've done to California.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. DeFAZIO. But for the gentleman to say that we'll just 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. If they want to use the State money and they want to say there are no laws that apply and we're just going to build this Chinese method of here comes the bulldozer, get out of the way, get out of your house, here it comes, fine. States are like that. They do it with their own money, and people of that State can deal with it. But for the Federal Government to say, We wash our hands of this and you can do anything you want with Federal taxpayer dollars, constructing major new highways with no review, I think that's a little over the top.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. I've long supported changing the law so that the funds collected for harbor maintenance are spent on harbor maintenance. They're spent all across the country on a whole range of things, except harbor maintenance. I have jetties failing in Coos Bay, Oregon; a jetty failing at the mouth of the Columbia River. I have ports that are shoaling in Port Orford or Florence that the Corps says they can't afford 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. This is long overdue, and I strongly support the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. I am going to ask the gentleman from Wisconsin a question about his 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 competitiveness.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I know. You don't have that and I appreciate that; but in your amendment, 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 categorically excluded from the requirements relating to environmental assessments or environmental impact statements. 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, and that's not just within existing rights-of-way. That is, acquire a new right-of-way, build an eight-lane road and no environmental review? Don't you think, I mean, that might be a little bit over the edge?

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 letters 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 was insinuating that we in the minority would initiate the letter, the point is we would 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 of hours, that Leaders 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 don't have to go through all their usual procedures, and then they would send a 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'm willing to clear my weekend schedule. I have things scheduled. I'm 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 DOT that they are going to delay or cancel projects. And again, in the case of North Carolina, $1.2 billion worth of projects, 41,000 jobs lost. In my State, a couple of thousand jobs lost, and we have high unemployment. All across the country, it probably adds up to 100,000 jobs that will be foregone this construction season if we don't get a longer-term bill done by mid- to late May. I think it's entirely possible and, as I said, on this side of the aisle we want to expedite 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 with all dispatch. Let's start tomorrow. Let's work through the weekend. Let's work through the next break. We've already had 10 or 12 or 15 breaks this year. Let's work through the next break. I'll cancel my schedule for that break, too, and get this bill done for the American people for our transportation system by mid-May.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would yield to the chairman of the committee in the hope that he would respond to that because I think it's a reasonable request.

Mr. DeFAZIO. No, it says ``or.'' ``Or a project within a right-of- way.'' 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 8, 12, 15 lanes wide, newly acquired right-of-way, with no environmental review.

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 a term as possible, transportation bill as soon as possible. Now, this extension is for 180 days. We can't wait for 180 days to come to agreement with the Senate. We need to go to an expedited conference as soon as possible. We have been gathering data from the individual States since the last 90-day extension 3 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 foregone because of the uncertainty created by these 90-day extensions. It's time to put an end to 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 could not 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 the other members of the conference saying, wait a minute, that's totally unacceptable to us. They couldn't get the bill out. But even the fact that they couldn't get the bill out, there's much overlap and agreement between many provisions in H.R. 7 and what the Senate has done. I believe we could conference those areas in disagreement quite promptly. As the ranking member said, this no longer ends Safe Routes to Schools, something which I opposed in H.R. 7, and other cycling and alternate modes of transportation. It doesn't throw transit out the window or off the bridge, but transit would be in play between the House and the Senate. During the last stage or authorization of SAFETEA-LU, we had an incredible fight in conference. It wasn't between Democrats and Republicans; it was between the House and the Senate. We fought for a number of weeks over the split between transit and highways and came to a good accommodation, I believe. And hopefully we'll end up close to that in this. But the Senate bill, which we tried to force a vote on, and had we put that in place 3 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 2 years of funding with the Senate bill. So, you know, I will support this iteration because I am anxious to get to conference, I am anxious to get agreement. I believe we should get it done before the middle of May so that States can capture this construction season, and we can put a few hundred thousand people who desperately want jobs back to work and those who supply them back to work. Finally, on the issue of excessive fuel prices, there is only one thing we can do immediately. I mean, the XL pipeline, first off, they say they are going to export it after they refine it. We are exporting gasoline from the United States of America today. We have prices being set in a world market, and it's being set by speculators on Wall Street. If we just clamp down on the speculation on Wall Street, the head of ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, the St. Louis Federal Reserve, and prominent economists say we could save consumers 60 to 70 cents a gallon tomorrow if we stopped the rip-offs by the people on Wall Street, and the excessive speculation by the people on Wall Street, something that's only been allowed for about a decade. It didn't used to be allowed for them to control our energy future. So if you want to do something real, that should be part of this bill. XL pipeline can do nothing to help people get lower gas prices.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. The budget they're going to vote on later today would reduce spending by 56 percent on transportation. That is mind-boggling in the face of what confronts our Nation, the challenges around the world, and the need for jobs. There are people on their side of the aisle that just say, The government can't create jobs. They're hung up on this semantic thing. No, the government isn't creating the jobs. The government is investing taxpayer dollars without borrowing to let out private contracts to the lowest and best bidders to build these projects with all products made in America--the strongest Made in America requirement. So you can't tell me those things don't create jobs. Those are investments. They create jobs. Consumption and tax cuts don't create jobs. They want more tax cuts instead of investment in America. That is so wrong. Let us vote on the bipartisan Senate bill. If 22 Republican Senators can support that bill, which would give us 2 years of stability, we ought to have a chance to vote on it in this House.

Mr. DeFAZIO. This could or should be the most important jobs-creating bill in America, investing in our Nation's infrastructure, making our Nation more competitive in the international economy, more efficiently moving goods and people. The current system, a legacy of the 1950s, is falling apart. The Republicans are telling us that this 90-day extension will be good for America. It will not be good for America because we have a better option before us. A bill passed by the United States Senate, a bipartisan bill, with 22 Republican Senators, half the Republican Senators supporting that bill, which would give us more funding without creating deficit and create more jobs than their pie- in-the-sky bill, H.R. 7, which they can't even get out of their own caucus here, because their own caucus is split. There are a number of Republicans who do not believe we should have a national transportation system. They want to devolve it back to the States, go back to the pre-1950s. The Speaker was forced to say to his caucus: We are not making the claim that spending taxpayer money on transportation projects creates jobs. We don't make that claim, and we won't make that claim. What makes this a jobs bill is that it removes government barriers that are getting in the way of economic growth. That's not what all the people engaged in rebuilding the Nation's infrastructure think. They think investment equals jobs. If we do this 90-day extension, the Association of General Contractors says that States will cut back from 50 percent to 40 percent of their planned projects because of the uncertainty created by this 90-day extension. We're going to lose half of the proposed projects this construction season around America, tens of thousands of jobs, needed investment because they've got a bunch of bozos in their caucus that don't believe we should have a national transportation system. They're fighting among themselves. Give us a vote. Let us vote on the Senate bill. It doesn't create deficit. It does create jobs. It does give us the investment we need. The gentleman who spoke just before me, the gentleman from Tennessee, who is a good friend, under the bill they're trying to pry out of their caucus, which the Secretary of Transportation called the worst transportation bill in history--and by the way, the Secretary is a Republican and served in this House for more than a decade. He says it's the worst bill ever in terms of policy and lack of investment. In the case of the gentleman from Tennessee, their H.R. 7, if they could get it out of caucus--and they can't--it would cost his State $444 million over 5 years. That's lost investment. That's more than 10,000 jobs lost. We have an opportunity today to take up a 2-year bill and provide certainty not only for construction jobs and for engineering jobs, but for people who manufacture construction equipment, for people with Made in America requirements who construct transportation equipment, our buses, our light rail, our streetcars, all the things that need building and replacing just for the existing system, let alone beginning to have a vision of building out a 21st century system. Our competitor nations around the world are doing it. They are so dyspeptic on their side, they're arguing over whether or not the Federal Government should be involved in transportation. That's nuts. We settled that debate 60 years ago when Dwight David Eisenhower said this doesn't work. We have States building turnpikes that end in farmers' fields because the adjoining State couldn't afford to build their section of the turnpike. He said we need a coordinated national transportation policy. We have an opportunity to improve on the one we have today by passing the Senate bill that does do some streamlining, it does do things that will help us spend the money more efficiently, and it maintains current levels of spending instead of reductions, and it does not have the uncertainty of a 90-day bill that is going to cost us half of the proposed projects this construction season. Give us that chance. Let us have that vote. What are you afraid of? Are you afraid it might pass?

Mr. DeFAZIO. This is really a discussion about the future of transportation in America, and there is a very basic difference. The Republicans are being hung up because there is a substantial portion of their caucus that believes--truly believes--there is no Federal interest, that we should not have a national transportation policy and that it should be devolved to the States. Well, that's what this looks like when you devolve to the States. Kansas Turnpike, 1956, Oklahoma said they'd build their section. They didn't. They were launching cars into Amos Switzer's cornfield for the next 8 years. This was about the failure of a 50-State transportation policy. They are being hung up by enough people on their side to hold up this bill by those who believe that this is the way the country should look in the future. Now, we want jobs. Even if they could move their H.R. 7--which they can't because of this faction--they would cut funding by 20 percent. We've got 150,000 bridges on the Federal system, the National Highway System, that need repair or replacement. Forty percent of the pavement needs substantial redoing, not just resurfacing. There is a $70 billion backlog on our legacy transit systems--that's our 20th century system-- and there's no money in this for a 21st century system. And this is their vision. Their vision, it's one of two visions. Cut 20 percent. The Ryan budget actually would cut transportation by 35 percent from current levels. Or the Flat Earthers who say there's no Federal interest in a national transportation system. One of those three things is going to come out from their side; a 20 percent cut, a 35 percent cut, or no program. We have an alternative. Let's vote on the Senate bill. When you can get 22 Republican Senators to vote to extend the program for 2 years-- and we had one gentleman say, Oh, 2 years is nothing, no equipment orders. Well, guess what. I have a list here--and it's just the beginnings of a list--of seven State DOTs who have contacted the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials saying a 90-day delay will cost jobs; 40,000 jobs in North Carolina, and on down the list. Nevada, Maryland, Michigan, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and New Hampshire have all reported in about projects they're going to delay or cancel if we do another 90-day extension and we don't do the 2-year bill. The 2-year bill is enough certainty for these projects to move forward. No, it's not optimal. We need a real 5-year bill, but we don't need a 5-year bill that guts or destroys the program. But those are the alternatives you are offering us here. Just give us one vote, just one vote. Let us vote on the Senate bill, which passed as a true bipartisan bill. This is not a bipartisan bill. The gentleman from Florida is a good friend. But look, we did not sit down and look at this bill and review it. It was presented to us.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I still agree with that quote. We shouldn't play politics. It has never been a partisan issue. You've made it into a partisan issue, and that quote was when you were opposing a 90-day extension and when I was saying don't play politics by opposing a 90- day extension at that point in time. But we're too far down the road. We didn't have an alternative then. We have an alternative now. Pass the Senate bill. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DeFAZIO. I just want to reiterate the point I made earlier. Outside of a minority of their caucus, I believe a majority of the United States House of Representatives believes that Federal investment--using taxpayer dollars without creating deficit--that Federal investment and rebuilding our national infrastructure, the 150,000 bridges on the National Highway System that need substantial repair or replacement--the steel that goes into those bridges is made in America. The workers are American workers. The engineers are American engineers. The $60 billion backlog in our existing transit systems, let alone giving Americans more fuel-efficient transit options, $60 billion. Buses made in America, light railcars made in America, these are manufacturing jobs, engineering jobs, high-tech jobs. These are not just construction jobs. The construction industry, itself, is devastated with double-digit unemployment. Passing this 90-day extension, according to the Association of General Contractors, a very Republican-leaning organization--80 percent of their political contributions go to the Republicans, so they are not partisan to our side of the aisle--they say that it is going to mean the States will go to a 40 or 50 percent reduction in their projects this summer because they are not assured beyond that 90 days that they're going to get their Federal reimbursements. Many States, unlike this body and unlike the Federal Government, have constitutional balanced budget requirements, something we should have nationally. But that's a debate for another day. The point is that this temporary extension does cost us jobs, and the bill we'll vote on later today, the Ryan budget, would actually reduce transportation investments by 56 percent from current levels, which isn't even dealing with the already deteriorated infrastructure and is not putting people back to work. So there's this kind of a mixed message on their side. They say, Well, just do the 90 days and then we'll do H.R. 7. Well, H.R. 7 will reduce spending and cost half a million jobs.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. Well, the Republicans have got the wheel hard over, pedal to the metal. They are spinning doughnuts. And they want another 90 days or 60 days--it was 90 days yesterday; 60 days today--to spin doughnuts until they run out of fuel on their side of the aisle. Look, the Senate, which previous to this leadership was the most dysfunctional legislative body in the land, has passed a 2-year bill with reforms and streamlining with half of the Republican Senators, including some members of the Flat Earth Caucus, voting for it. It received 74 votes in the Senate. Nothing gets 74 votes in the Senate. But you're refusing to bring that bill up because--we might get something done around here. So how about another 60 days to spin our wheels? Well, let's have a little bit of history here: February 8, 2011, Chairman Mica: ``We'll have a surface transportation bill by the August recess.'' That was, what, 2011. Oops. Well, then in August of 2011, Chairman Mica: ``I will agree to one additional highway program extension.'' Oops. He's asking for yet another and another and today yet another. Well, then, spin forward quickly to November of 2011, Speaker Boehner: ``House will pass a highway bill this year.'' That was last year. Then we go forward to February 1, 2012. Here's the problem: they've got a bunch of people on their side who hate government so much that they're willing to destroy the national transportation program to kill it. We are not making the claim, Speaker Boehner, that spending taxpayer money on transportation projects creates jobs, are we, huh? They hate government so much, they will say that investment by the government in building a national transportation system and maintaining it and rebuilding it with ``Made in America'' requirements does not create jobs. Why would he say that? Because they've got 80 people on their side of the aisle who do not believe we should have a national transportation plan or policy. They're willing to let our roads, bridges, and highways crumble. This is the pre-Dwight David Eisenhower--a Republican President-- National Highway System program. This is the brand-spiffy-new Kansas Turnpike that ended in this farmer's field on the Oklahoma border. This went on for years because Oklahoma didn't deliver its section. They want to go back to those good old days. No Federal mandates. No Federal transportation system. Oh, okay. So the Port of Los Angeles and the people of southern California should pay for everything that relates to getting freight in and out of L.A. It doesn't affect the rest of the United States of America. Or the Port of Portland or the Port of Seattle or the ports on the east coast. Our competitor nations get it. They're spending. They're investing. Even countries with austerity programs, like Britain, they're putting people back to work. Despite what the Speaker had to say to the Flat Earth Caucus over there, it does create jobs and investments. We need to move forward. Now they're saying, Oh, no problem, just another temporary delay while we get our act together on our side of the aisle. Well, again, we already heard the statement, no more, only one more temporary extension. That was about 9 months ago. And we're finding now that actually the delays are costing jobs, uncertainty costs jobs. States can't make commitments for major projects and investments if they don't know if there is going to be Federal money there in 90 days. Ninety days? Oh, 60 days. I forgot. In 60 days. They're going to plan a long- term project that can last 60 days? No, I don't think so. So in North Carolina, the Secretary of Transportation says: The delays have cost 41,000 jobs. That seems a little high to me. But Nevada, 4,000 jobs. Maryland, 4,000 jobs. Michigan, 3,500 jobs. Adding it up across the country, even if we use the low numbers, we're talking tens of thousands of job opportunities lost because they can't get their act together. Just let us vote on the Senate bill. That's all we're asking. I mean, I think there might be a few people on your side of the aisle who would agree with their Republican colleagues in the Senate and support it. And I can guarantee we would get almost every Democrat on this side of the aisle to vote for it. You can't even get your own people to vote for your own bill. You are wrapped around the axle on your own caucus day after day. You have to pretend it won't create jobs. Well, that's not enough for them. Paul Ryan has now proposed in the budget, which we're going to vote on next, that we should decrease funding in transportation by 35 percent. But you're saying over there that you want to continue the current levels. Well, you'd better get it together because if you're going to support the Ryan budget, then you've just voted to cut transportation beginning October 1 by 35 percent. That's about 500,000 jobs. But what the heck. You guys hate government so much, you hate America so much that you won't do what's necessary to put this country back together, to rebuild the infrastructure that was given to us by Democrats and Republicans alike for more than half a century, never in a partisan way. This is the first experiment, the first attempt to pass a totally partisan bill, and you're failing on your own side of the aisle. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise to urge Members to vote against the previous question. Now, why would we do that? Because we need to invest in America's crumbling infrastructure, and the Republicans are totally incapable of producing a transportation bill. Here's a little bit of review of history. February 8, 2011, Chairman Mica: We will have a bill by August. Then we skip forward a little bit, August, Chairman Mica: I will agree to one additional highway program extension--meaning they didn't get the bill done by August. Then we fast-forward to November, Speaker Boehner: House to pass highway bill this year. That was, of course, November 2011. It's 2012. Now the Republicans are saying they need another 90 days to get agreement in their own caucus. They're never going to get agreement. There are 80 Members of the Republican caucus who believe that there is no Federal interest-- get this--no Federal interest in the national transportation system. It should devolve to the 50 States, back to the good ol' days when Kansas built the turnpike and Oklahoma didn't, and the cars were launched off the end of the turnpike into a farmer's field for another 5 years until Kansas finally got around to it. Let's go back to those good old days. They also say they don't want to create jobs. This won't create jobs, the Speaker has said. Well, guess what? Transportation investment is the best way to create made-in-America jobs: transit equipment made in America, steel made in America, construction jobs by Americans for Americans for our future. They can't get it done. No more 90-day extensions or whatever they're dithering around now. They've got the throttle on the floor and they're spinning doughnuts, but they've run out of gas. So it's time to act. What we need to do is defeat the previous question, bring up the bipartisan, Senate-passed transportation bill, which half of the Republican Senators--some of the members of the Flat Earth Society even voted for. Bring that bill up here--we can get the votes on this side of the aisle--and pass it and put Americans back to work.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We had, at the end of last Congress, a tremendous bipartisan vote-- 406 19--on repealing straight up the antitrust immunity of the insurance industry. The American people, no matter where they are on the Affordable Care Act, agree on one thing: insurance companies should not be able to get together and collude to either exclude people from coverage or drive up prices. Yet they do. They have an exemption under a law from the 1940s. Now, what the gentleman is offering sounds pretty good, but it won't get us there because 90 percent of the antitrust cases are private, and almost every single one of those cases is a class action. So if you preclude class actions, you can pretend you're being tough with the insurance industry while you can wink and nod and say, hey, don't worry about it because there really won't be any litigation under this; and you're still going to be able to skate, and you're still going to be able to collude, and you're still going to be able to drive up prices. Think of the context in what we're doing. We're talking about IPAB today, but they've already voted to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act. That means no more restrictions on rescissions--the dirty little practice where you've been paying your premium for years and you get sick and the insurance company says, sorry, we're not going to renew your policy. That's been outlawed. They're going to do away with the prohibitions on age discrimination. They're going to do away with the prohibitions on preexisting conditions. So now we're going to have an insurance industry that is, essentially, free from antitrust law, that can take away your policy when you get sick, that can discriminate against you because you're old, can discriminate against you because you're sick or you have been sick, and it would take away the protections and the review of excessive rate increases. So if we were doing a straight-up, take away their antitrust immunity, make them play by the same rules as every other business in America, except for professional sports, who are exempt from antitrust law, that would be fine. But let's not have this phony fig leaf so you can wink and nod to the insurance industry and say, ``Hey, don't worry about it; it won't have any impact,'' but we can say to consumers we're with them.