Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the pending legislation before this body today, at the eleventh hour, as a result of a tortuous process--excuse me, it's not been a process at all, but rather a series of stalled starts, retreats, and the failure by the Republican leadership to seize upon a reasonable solution to reauthorizing our Nation's transportation surface programs. At first, the Speaker stated this was a jobs bill. Almost as soon as the words were out of his mouth, he countered himself by saying that investing in America's infrastructure has nothing to do with jobs at all. Nothing to do with jobs at all. What came about then was a scheme to produce a 5-year reauthorization bill coupled with that universal House Republican answer to all ills, which is to open up ANWR to drilling, drill, baby, drill, and then attempt to pay for some of the proposal on the backs of working-class Americans. The surface transportation portion, H.R. 7, proposed to slash $15.8 billion in highway funding to the States, destroying 550,000 American family-wage jobs over the coming years. Investment in roads, highways, and bridges would retrench in all but five States. The Republican leadership also proposed to shift public transit revenue to highways and then bail out transit with a one-time transfer of $40 billion from the general fund, while robbing middle class Americans to pay for the shuffle. This is an idea that would make even the most hardened con artist green with envy. It is a shell game. It's a shell game, but it has no place in the hallowed Halls of Congress. It is a shell game, and it is a sham. But it was not Democrats who took this ill-advised proposal down; it was Republicans. Over the course of 6 weeks, they caucused, they corralled, and they contorted themselves in trying to obtain 218 votes to pass H.R. 7. And they could not, which brings us to this week, when the Republican leadership decided to bring up a 90-day extension bill under suspension of the rules in the form of H.R. 4239. But when this legislation was called up on Tuesday, it was done so as a 60-day extension. The House debated this measure. I asked for a vote, and the vote was postponed. As far as I know, that request for a vote is still pending, even as we debate a different bill now. Then another curious thing happened. According to the publication Transportation Weekly yesterday, and I quote: After more discussion among themselves, Republican leaders order Mica to reintroduce the 60-day version of his extension as a stand-alone bill, which can then be considered by the Rules Committee. That bill is H.R. 4276. The Transportation Weekly article yesterday then noted, and I quote again: After still more discussion among themselves, Republican leaders order Mica to reintroduce the 90-day version of the extension as a stand-alone bill, which can then be considered by the Rules Committee as well. Confused? Anybody confused? That bill is now H.R. 4281, which we are currently debating. Who knows what we'll be debating the next hour. And yet, during the course of last and this week, the Republican leadership could have scheduled the bipartisan, non-controversial, Senate-passed bill for consideration by this body. It could have been brought up any time by the Speaker, passed by this body in a bipartisan fashion, signed into law. I make these points to illustrate the fast and loose means by which the Republican leadership has been dealing with an extremely serious matter. Instead they're spinning their wheels in pursuit of the ill- conceived H.R. 7, which slashes investments in Federal aid to highways by $15.8 billion from current levels at a time when more spending is needed to address structurally deficient bridges and maintain our highway system. H.R. 7 reduces highway funding to all but five States. H.R. 7 guts America's commitment to transit by a sleight-of-hand move that siphons away a portion of gas taxes which are dedicated to transit funding and instead proposes to fund transit with general revenue funds which is offset on the backs of workers. H.R. 7 contains a bogus pay-for by linking opening up ANWR and changes in OCS oil and gas leasing, which only produce $4.3 billion over a 10-year period. H.R. 7 continues to send American dollars and jobs overseas through the inclusion of a ``Buy America Light'' requirement that does not fully cover transit rolling stock, Amtrak, and the Federal railroad loan program, while failing to crack down on DOT's waiver authority. H.R. 7 places a roadblock on public participation in reviewing transportation projects by limiting and, in certain cases, outright waiving NEPA. And H.R. 7 eliminates OSHA protections for hazmat workers and allows bad actors to continue to receive hazmat compliance exemptions. So this body could have considered and passed the other body's bipartisan bill, which passed that body by a vote of 74 22. That's half of the Republican Members in the other body, and we know how difficult it is to get that other body to get 60 votes to cut off debate on any resolution or any bill. Even one saying ``I love Mother'' would be hard to pass in that other body. Yet, for a transportation bill, they came up with 72 votes. That bill continues current funding levels, sustaining approximately 1.9 million jobs. The States will receive $3.8 billion more in highway construction funding than H.R. 7 over the course of 2 years. The Senate bipartisan bill eliminates many of the gaping loopholes in current law by American requirements, loopholes that are being exploited by foreign competitors like China, who are stealing American jobs. The Senate bipartisan bill does not contain poison pills like H.R. 7, such as provisions to strip OSHA requirements for hazmat workers and efforts to finance highway construction on the backs of middle class workers. I would note, Mr. Speaker, that we have tried, we have tried by every means available to us on this side of the aisle, to have this Senate- passed bill brought up for consideration in the House, and not just through procedural motions. Yesterday, Representatives DeFazio, Corrine Brown, Tim Bishop, and myself submitted that measure to the Rules Committee, asking them to make it in order as an amendment to the pending measure so we could vote on it today. We were denied. Instead, we are on the floor today with the Republican leadership proposal to kick the can down the road for another 90 days so they can try to convince their conference to support something they have not been able to do over the last 6 weeks. The fact of the matter is we need to be investing more, not less, if we are to keep pace with China, India, and our other international competitors. Today China spends 9 percent of its GDP per year on infrastructure. India spends 5 percent. The U.S. only invests 1.9 percent. While our competitors are moving forward, the inability of the Republican leadership to reach out across party lines to House Democrats to address this bill is leaving America stuck in a ditch and putting American businesses at a disadvantage with companies around the world. In 2008, a blue ribbon commission established as a result of the last multiyear surface transportation bill reported that the Federal Government must invest a minimum of $62 billion a year just to maintain the Nation's roads and bridges in their present inadequate condition. This bill comes nowhere close to that. Instead, it leads America down the opposite path. President Lyndon B. Johnson once said: ``In large measure, America's history is a history of her transportation.'' I say let us seize the moment and move forward without procedural gimmicks, without partisan brinksmanship, and do what is right for America, for the American worker, for American families, and for American values. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the distinguished ranking member on our Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

Mr. RAHALL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the bill he is promoting, H.R. 7, means to his home State of Pennsylvania a cut of $948 million, and it destroys some 32,983 good-paying jobs. For fiscal year 2016, in the State of Pennsylvania, the level of funding will be less than that for fiscal year 2004. That's what H.R. 7 would mean to the gentleman's home State of Pennsylvania.

Mr. RAHALL. You would not yield to me. I will not yield to you. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes now to the gentleman from Missouri, a valued member of our committee, Mr. Carnahan.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) at this time, a valued member of our committee and the sponsor of H.R. 14, the other body's bipartisan transportation bill, which is twice as good as H.R. 7.

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I am honored to yield the customary 1 minute to the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Gerry Connolly.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. May I inquire of the time remaining?

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida, the distinguished ranking member of our Subcommittee on Railroads.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon, the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4239. This legislation is yet another example of the Republican leadership's ``my way or the highway'' approach to legislating. There was no consultation with anyone on this side of the aisle prior to this particular measure being introduced and scheduled for consideration. The extension is unduly long, and it ignores the fact that we do have a solution in hand in the form of a bipartisan Senate surface transportation bill which passed the other body the week before last. With more than 2.7 million construction and manufacturing workers out of work, enough with the political games. With tens of millions more seeking a better life, it is far past the time to stop the brinksmanship. As we approach the start of construction season, we need to come together to pass a highway bill that will improve our infrastructure and, most importantly, create jobs. Instead, Republicans in the House continue their ``my way or the highway'' approach that is now leading to a kick-the-can-down-the-road extension. The other body has shown us the way. They passed an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill called MAP 21 with a vote of 74 22, with Senators Boxer and Inhofe leading the way across the ideological spectrum. The simple solution would be to take up that bill and pass it now. The President is prepared to sign it into law. Yet, instead, we have before us another extension premised on the perverse notion that the Republican leadership will, over the next 60 days, garner enough votes on their side of the aisle to pass H.R. 7, the 5-year bill reported by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. That committee reported H.R. 7 on February 13. The Rules Committee approved a rule governing its consideration on the floor on February 15. That was almost 6 weeks ago. During that time, the Republican leadership has failed to find the votes among its Members to pass that bill. They do not have 218 votes, and they know it. So the question is: What difference do they hope to achieve over the next 8 weeks that they were unable to achieve over the past 6 weeks? Not much, in my view, because the right wing of their party is holding H.R. 7 hostage to their ideological jihad that the Federal Government has no business in supporting a national transportation system. On February 22, 1955, President Dwight Eisenhower stated: Our unity as a Nation is sustained by free communication of thought and by easy transportation of people and goods. The ceaseless flow of information throughout the Republic is matched by individual and commercial movement over a vast system of interconnected highways, crisscrossing the country and joining at our national borders with friendly neighbors to the north and south. Promoted by a Republican President and passed by a Democratic- controlled Congress, America sought greatness as it embarked on the construction of the Interstate Highway System of 1956; and America achieved it, creating a transportation system that was once the envy of the world. Yet H.R. 7 represents a full-scale retreat from that dynamic vision set forth 56 years ago. It mortgages America's future at subprime rates. It bankrupts the highway trust fund and endangers the future long-term integrity of transportation programs. It destroys American jobs at a time when legions of Americans are desperately seeking work and are trying to make ends meet. It is the wrong direction for America. This day should be a day of glory. It should be a day when this body displays the courage and conviction necessary to address the pressing transportation needs of this Nation. Instead, it is a day of shame. It is a day when we are about to turn back the clock nearly half a century on America's greatness and on the incredible work we have done to grow our Nation, to build a thriving economy, and to lead the global market. Unlike the House bill, which slashes funding and destroys 550,000 jobs, the other body's bill continues current funding levels, sustaining approximately 1.9 million jobs. Under the Senate bill, the States will receive $3.8 billion more in highway construction funding than the House bill over the course of 2 years. The Senate bill eliminates many of the gaping loopholes in current law ``Buy America'' requirements--loopholes that are being exploited by foreign competitors, like China, who are stealing American jobs. MAP 21--that's the Senate bill--includes critical elements of my Buy America bill and the Invest in American Jobs Act, and it eliminates these loopholes in order to give American workers a fair shot. The Senate bill also does not contain poison pills like the House bill does, such as provisions to strip OSHA protections for hazmat workers and efforts to finance highway construction on the backs of middle class workers. The Senate bill is not the bill I would have written, but it is a fair bipartisan compromise--a word some in this body don't like to hear, especially on the other side, but it is a word that is necessary for legislating. The bill will provide the certainty that States need to invest and proceed with their plans long on the books. So, again, I call upon the Republican leadership to schedule that bill for consideration by this body now. Yet in the spirit of compromise--again, a word that's necessary in this body--I would remind the Republicans that it is a word in the dictionary, that it is a word that Americans use daily, and that I might consider supporting such a shorter extension than what is being proposed today, not this lavish 60-day, 8-week extension, but rather one that keeps our noses to the grindstone and that instills the sense of urgency that this matter deserves. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), who has introduced the other body's bill in this House. It's labeled H.R. 14 and is twice as good as H.R. 7.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield the customary 1 minute to our distinguished Democratic leader, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. RAHALL. Can you give us the time remaining, please, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Olver.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman 15 more seconds.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, to respond to the other side of the aisle about which party was in control when nothing was done or vice versa, whatever, as that side of the aisle knows, it takes so much to get the other body to agree on anything these days, to get the 60 votes necessary. It doesn't matter which party controls the other body; to get them to agree on something is difficult. So I conclude by saying vote against these delays and pass the Senate bill. I yield back the balance of my time.