To amend the Organic Act of Guam for the purposes of clarifying the local judicial structure of Guam.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3087) to provide an extension of highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a law reauthorizing the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge immediate passage of H.R. 3087, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2003. The immediate enactment of this legislation is necessary to continue the highway construction, highway safety, transit, motor carrier and surface transportation research programs within the Department of Transportation for an additional 5 months after fiscal year 2003 and ends on September 30, 2003, just 6 days from today.

If Congress does not pass a bill and send it to the President before the end of this fiscal year, four Department of Transportation agencies will close their doors and furlough their employees until Congress enacts an extension. Failure to pass a bill before the end of September also means that no State will be reimbursed for the Federal share of their transportation project costs, thus subjecting the Federal Government to breach of contract claims by the States. Moreover, high- wage infrastructure construction jobs, engineers, planners and other related jobs, would be lost. New highway projects will be shelved, safety grants will not be provided to the States, transit construction will be halted, and the Federal enforcement of motor carrier safety regulation on the highways and at the borders will end.

I would like to thank at this time the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and his staff for their cooperation in drafting provisions of this bill under the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and his staff for their assistance in preparing the provisions in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.

H.R. 3087 provides over $14 billion in contract authority to the States to continue Federal highway programs and over $3 billion to continue grants to transit agencies around the country. It provides $142 million for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and $125 million to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for highway safety grants.

Although this extension will provide funding for 5 months, on March 1 Congress will be faced with the same situation we face now; all the programs and the operation of the agencies will come to a screeching halt again.

I want to stress my continued commitment to the multiyear reauthorization bill, but I am also committed to introducing a bill that meets the needs and improves our highways and transit systems and provides jobs. Obviously, we have to find the revenues necessary to enact the authorization that best meets the needs of the country.

It is my intent, all with the help of God and everybody else, to introduce a bill before we adjourn this session of Congress. I am working very closely with the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), to achieve a bipartisan agreement that will result in the best possible bill.

We expect to produce legislation that is developed in consultation with the Members of this House to solve their transportation problems, provide more equity to the States and reduce gridlock throughout the Nation. In the interim, Congress must pass H.R. 3087 so that these important infrastructure programs and the jobs associated with them can continue.

I am submitting my full statement for the record, but I want to clarify that while I support the bill that is before the House today, I also introduced H.R. 3088, which was not scheduled. H.R. 3088 would have kept these programs operating through March, and also had a grace period during which the States could have been reimbursed for their expenditures and also could have used some of their unobligated funds.

My personal view is that we should have passed a 6-month extension with a grace period, but I am trying to work cooperatively with the other body and with the leadership. I have been assured today that H.R. 3087 passes, and, when it does, the other body will take it up and pass it without amendment and send it to the President immediately so there are no disruptions of these programs. My support today is based on that assurance. That is the reason I have compromised on the length of the extension and the removal of the grace period for the States. We do not have the time to continue a debate on this extension. It must go to the President immediately and become law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge immediate passage of H.R. 3087, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2003.

The immediate enactment of this legislation is necessary to continue the highway construction, highway safety, transit, motor carrier, and surface transportation research programs within the Department of Transportation for an additional 5 months after fiscal year 2003 ends on September 30, 2003, just 6 days from today.

If Congress does not pass a bill and send it to the President before the end of this fiscal year, four Department of Transportation agencies will close their doors and furlough their employees until Congress enacts an extension.

Failure to pass a bill before the end of September also means that no State will be reimbursed for the Federal share of their transportation projects costs, thus subjecting the Federal Government to breach of contract claims by the States.

Moreover, high wage infrastructure construction jobs, engineers, planners and other related jobs will be lost.

New highway projects will be shelved, safety grants will not be provided to States, transit construction will be halted, and Federal enforcement of motor carrier safety regulations on the highways and at the borders will end.

The total amounts provided in H.R. 3087 reflects 5/12s of the budget authority and associated outlays in the 2004 budget resolution that Congress passed this year.

I would like to thank Chairman Jim Nussle and his staff for their cooperation in drafting the provisions of this bill under the jurisdiction of the budget committee.

I also want to thank Chairman Bill Thomas and his staff for their assistance in preparing the provisions in the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee.

H.R. 3087 provides over $14 billion in contract authority to the States to continue the Federal Highway Program and over $3 billion to continue grants to transit agencies around the country.

It provides $142 million for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to make grants to the States to enforce commercial safety regulations and to continue truck and bus inspections at our southern border with Mexico.

H.R. 3087 provides $125 million to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for highway safety grants, occupant protection grants, and alcohol driving countermeasure grants.

This legislation will allow the temporary transfer of funds among core highway programs, to give States flexibility in administering their programs under a short-term extension.

However, the bill provides that any transfers will be restored when the next highway and transit authorization bill is passed.

Although this extension will provide funding for 5 months, on March 1 Congress will be faced with the same situation we face now. All of the programs and the operations of the agencies will come to a screeching halt again.

I want to stress my continued commitment to a multi-year reauthorization bill but, and I also remain committed to introducing a bill that meets the needs and improves our highways and transit systems and provides jobs.

On a national basis, congestion costs more than $67 billion annually--more than 3.6 billion hours of delay and 5.7 billion gallons of excess fuel consumed.

The average driver is losing more than a week and a half of work, 62 hours a year, sitting in gridlock. The average cost of congestion per peak road traveler is $1,160 a year.

For every $1 billion invested in Federal highway and transit spending, 47,500 jobs are created or sustained.

Nearly a third of all fatal crashes each year are caused by substandard road conditions and roadside hazards.

More than 42,000 Americans are killed and 3.3 million are seriously injured each year on the Nation's highways.

Obviously, we have to find the revenues necessary to enact the authorization that best meets the needs of the country.

It is my intent to introduce a bill before we adjourn this session of Congress. I am working cooperatively with my ranking minority member, Congressman Oberstar to achieve a bipartisan agreement that will result in the best possible bill. We expect to produce legislation that is developed in consultation with the Members of this House to solve our transportation problems, provide more equity to states, and reduce gridlock throughout the Nation.

In the interim, Congress must pass H.R. 3087 so that these important infrastructure programs and the jobs associated with them can continue.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, who does an outstanding job.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the gentlewoman has talked about, about getting out of Washington, D.C. As the gentlewoman knows, I am very sympathetic; and we will be addressing it in the full bill to try to solve some of those problems of having the ability to get the people out of Washington, if necessary, in a quick fashion.

Our biggest goal of, I believe, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and members of the committee is to really address the issues of congestion across this whole Nation. I have had the privilege of being in 40 different States in the last 2 years. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has traveled with me and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). We go across this Nation, and we find a tremendous equal problem in every big city. New York, with all due respect to New York, if that one bridge was blown up, you would have 12 million people stranded with no way to supply. San Francisco and, I would suggest, L.A., Houston. So we have a national problem about congestion and the ability to move product and people to and fro; and it is my hope on this committee, with the members of this committee and with the help of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the staffs which we have, we will work really hard and we will be able to introduce a bill before we break this session that will meet those needs.

Mr. Speaker, if I had full authority, we would not only meet the needs; we would be able to have the money. But under this system, this is a two-tiered system; it has to go from this committee to another committee, and that committee will have the responsibility of trying to raise the funds to meet the needs that we are going to pass out of the committee to do the job for the people, to be able to move the people in case of an emergency, but also to make sure that commerce continues to grow. Without the ability to grow, without the ability to have transportation, our economy will shrink. So that is my goal on the committee, and I am confident we can achieve those goals. The American public wants to do this. I am confident that as time goes by there will be a greater bit of wisdom in certain parts of this great city of ours to understand the needs as I have presented to the committee and the committee will be able to send to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record at this point a letter from the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, to myself regarding H.R. 3087.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Budget,

Washington, DC, September 23, 2003.

Hon. Don Young,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure,

Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Young: I understand that the House is

expected to consider a five-month extension of TEA21 and

concerns have arisen as to whether this would have adverse

budgetary implications for highway, highway safety, and mass

transit programs when a long-term extension is considered

next year.

In particular, concerns have been raised that the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure would be penalized

should the short-term extension expire before the

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) releases it baseline

projections early next year. As you know, CBO is generally

prohibited from assuming the continuation of any expired

mandatory program.

I am confident your committee will not be penalized for any

temporary lapse in its spending authorities. For purposes of

enforcing either the 2004 or 2005 budget resolution, the

appropriate baseline would be the baseline underlying the

budget resolution. The 2004 budget resolution assumes a

multi-year extension of TEA21, and I can assure you that the

House budget resolution for 2005 will also assume such an

extension and I will work to maintain that position in

conference.

Further, it would be my intent, if necessary, to request

that CBO produce an alternative baseline that assumes a full

year extension and I would use this baseline to develop the

FY 2005 budget resolution. Accordingly, it will make little

difference as to whether the House ultimately adopts a five-

or six month extension. Either way, I will make every attempt

to ensure that the operative baseline reflects the

continuation of these critical highway, highway safety, and

mass transit programs.

If I may be of any assistance as you move this important

bill, please do not hesitate to contact me or Rich Meade,

Chief of Staff of the Budget Committee, at 6-7270.

Sincerely,

Jim Nussle,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will state that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) makes a great statement, and I am well aware of what he said about the time frame.

As we know, my druthers were 6 months. That probably would not have solved the problem. But it is my goal to have a bill before this session is closed down, introduced and vetted, and it is our hope that we can do our job as the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and that this House will move a bill over to the other body before the deadline; and I believe we can do that.

Now, whether the other body can achieve its goals with five committees that handle this legislation is another story, let alone the conference. So it is going to be very difficult. But our job in this House, and I hope the gentleman agrees with me, is to do our job and to move the legislation, to move the ball forward, get it to the goal line, and then, hopefully, they will have the wisdom to drive it over and make a touchdown with the help of the other body. If not, unfortunately, we will probably be back here, but that is not my intent. My intent is to achieve that goal. But now we have to pass this, get it down to the President, have him sign it so our highways across this Nation can continue to be built, the jobs will still be in place, and the infrastructure can continue to grow as it needs to be.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of H.R. 3087, to extend our highway safety motor carrier safety programs for the next 5 months.

I extend my commiserations to our chairman, who had the honesty and the integrity to say we really should be here doing a 6-month extension. He knows, I know, and we both agreed, and 74 members of our committee agreed in cosponsoring the 6-month extension, that is the right policy to do for this country, and he has labored mightily with the other body, as we affectionately say in this House, to reason, rightly and properly, to get the right policy. But it could not be done, unfortunately.

The bill before us will extend to February 29 the funding for our transportation programs at 5/12ths of the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution. I want to specify those dollar amounts: Highways, $14.73 billion; transit, $3.04 billion; motor carrier safety and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, $266.32 million; for a total of $18.04 billion.

Members and the State transportation departments that they represent should have no concerns about the continued flow of dollars for our highway and transit programs. We are assuring that those dollars move forward, because we also extend the landmark legacy of TEA-21, which is the budget firewalls guaranteed account, which assures that the dollars collected at the pump will be translated into highway and transit projects on the other side, and that all of those dollars will be invested in the Nation's surface transportation infrastructure, and not to mask the growing size of the Federal deficit.

But this stopgap is no substitute for the long-term bill. We need to work together, as the chairman has said, to fashion the 6-year bill that will be the successor to TEA-21, and that, in my expectation and every reasonable assessment of the Nation's congestion problems, transportation needs in urban, suburban and rural areas, adds up to $375 billion in needs over the next 6 years, a 60 percent increase over

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the issue the gentlewoman has raised. It is identical to the issue the gentleman from Oregon addressed in the well just moments ago.

Although the bill allows States to transfer funds among programs during this 5-month period where they deem necessary, the restoration of any funds borrowed will begin upon enactment of any subsequent law reauthorizing the program, whether a short-term additional extension or a multiyear reauthorization. The restoration of funds is specifically required by section 3(c) of the pending bill.

I further want to make clear that I will not support efforts to change the effect of section 3(c) of the bill to allow the transfer authority to be extended beyond February 29, 2004. I thank the gentlewoman for her vigilance and the gentleman from Oregon similarly.

Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I wish to include in the Record the statement I referred to earlier of March 9, 1998 on our previous TEA 21 legislation. I just want to underscore the importance of what we are doing. A very short-term extension, a very short leash on this program. And to also point out how critically important it is going to be for us not only to do our work in the committee which I am confident, absent external pressures, we can accomplish, but also to move that bill through this body and get into conference with the other body and resolve what will be clearly differences between the two Houses; that is going to take considerable amounts of time and effort.

I would ideally like to see in the balance of this year, not just, I am not just talking about the legislative session, but the balance of this calendar year, that this body will stay in session, so that when we do, and I am confident that we will, complete work in our committee on a bill, a 6-year extension, we could bring it to this floor and pass it to this body before the end of this calendar year, so that we are ready to go at the beginning of next year with conference.

But absent that, look at this time frame. We will convene in January. Typically, the House, then exhausted from its holiday recess, will recess again to await the message of the President on the State of the Union. And then having heard that message on the State of the Union, exhausted from the burdens imposed on us by the President, we will recess again and not come back until the beginning of February.

Now, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) is smiling but he has been here 2 years longer than I, and he knows exactly what happens in this body, and that is exactly what will happen.

So then we will come back here some time in February and hope we can escape from under the burden of the Presidents' Day recess and then pass that bill. And then we will have the blink of an eye in which to conference with the other body and bring a bill back before the end of February.

I am afraid if we do not get this bill done, through this body by the Christmas recess, then we will be back here on this floor once again pleading for another extension of time to keep transportation programs from once again expiring. So our responsibility is serious, is substantial. We have a big job to do. I am confident we can get it done in our committee. I am just not confident about the overall structure and the time frame remaining in this session.

I do not want to be back on this floor saying again what I said 6 years ago, time is running out.

Time Is Running Out for a New Highway Bill

(By James L. Oberstar)

Time is running out in our effort to reauthorize our

federal highway, mass transit and other related

transportation programs.

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1992

expired last September 30, and the fund provided by the six-

month extension approved in the waning days of the 1997

session will run out by May 1. Without new Congressional

action, states will have to face the summer construction

season without an assurance of federal transportation funds.

It is imperative we move as soon as possible on a new,

multiyear surface transportation bill, but we also need to

ensure that the bill we produce adequately addresses the

nation's transportation needs. In the House, H.R. 2400, the

Building Efficient Surface Transportation Enhancement Act

(BESTEA), is pending in the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure. This bill, I firmly believe, provides the

level of funding necessary to build, repair and maintain our

crumbling infrastructure, improve mass transit and other

alternative modes, enhance safety, and protect the

environment. The bill has strong bipartisan support and is a

testimony to Transportation Committee Chairman Bud Shuster's

(R-Pa.) leadership.

In recent weeks, the Senate has moved ahead on its ISTEA

successor, and I applaud my Senate colleagues for that. I

also applaud their efforts to increase funding, especially

for mass transit programs, and bring the spending levels in

their bill closer to those in BESTEA. However, the Senate

bill's funding levels rely heavily on budget authority,

promises that may or may not lead to actual funding.

In the House, we are working to overcome the spending

restrictions imposed by last year's balanced budget

agreement. While I support the effort to eliminate the budget

deficit, recent projections by the Office of Management and

Budget and the Congressional Budget Office have shown that

the budget deficit will actually be eliminated this year,

years ahead of the schedule anticipated by the budget

agreement. Still, Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich (R-

Ohio) and others insist on strict adherence to the

conservative spending limits contained in that agreement.

To his credit, Speaker Newt Gingrich has formed a task

force to look into the issue. The Speaker himself chairs the

task force, which also includes Chairman Shuster, Kasich, and

Surface Transportation Subcommittee Chairman Thomas Petri (R-

Wis.). This task force has been charged with finding a way to

make more funds available for transportation programs without

violating the integrity of the budget agreement. This is a

difficult task, and I wish them success.

In some quarters, this issue is being characterized as an

effort to take funding away from education, defense,

agriculture and other discretionary programs and spend that

money on roads, bridges and mass transit. That is not true.

Funding for transportation is drawn from a trust fund

dedicated to this purpose.

Federal fuel taxes (currently 18.4 cents per gallon of

gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel fuel) are

collected from motorists, truckers and other road users for

maintenance and enhancement of our transportation

infrastructure. These taxes are deposited in the Highway

Trust Fund.

The budget agreement, however, maintains a high surplus in

the trust fund in order to cover overspending elsewhere in

the budget and present the illusion of balance. The Highway

Trust Fund was never intended to cover deficits in other

programs or to act as a bank for the rest of the government.

To allow such an enormous surplus to accumulate in order to

spend more money on non-transportation programs is a major

breach of faith with users to pay the fuel taxes and expect--

and deserve--these funds to be spent for transportation

purposes.

As we work to eliminate our federal budget deficit, this

country also faces a huge and growing infrastructure deficit.

Almost 254,000 miles of highway pavement are in poor

condition. One of every three bridges is structurally

deficient of functionally obsolete. Nearly one of every two

transit rail yards, stations and bridges is in poor

condition. Yet, every year federal, state and local

governments spend $17 billion less than the amount needed

simply to maintain these facilities at their current

condition and capacity.

BESTEA would help overcome this infrastructure deficit,

authorizing $179.8 billion, a 48 percent increase over ISTEA,

for highway programs and $36.7 billion, a 15 percent

increase, in transit funding through 2003.

Reauthorization of ISTEA will set our national

transportation priorities well into the 21st Century.

Chairman Shuster, Chairman Petri, Subcommittee Ranking

Democrat Nick Joe Rahall (D-W.V.) and I believe BESTEA

continues and improves upon the transportation policies and

programs set forth in ISTEA. We will continue to work

together and are determined to bring BESTEA to a vote on the

House floor in time to rescue the states from the

transportation-funding limbo in which they will find

themselves in six weeks if we do not act quickly.

Time is running out.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. BORDALLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, today we are considering legislation to amend the Organic Act of Guam to establish the Guam judiciary as the third co-equal and independent branch of the government of Guam. Passing H.R. 2400 is an important and necessary step in the exercising of Congress's plenary authority over the territories as granted in article IV of the United States Constitution. The bill is relatively straightforward and has the full support of all Guam's leaders.

I introduced H.R. 2400 last year at the request of the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Guam and the chairman of the 27th Guam legislature's Committee on the Judiciary. The bill would empower Guam's judiciary by clarifying the territory's local judicial structure. In essence, H.R. 2400 would amend the Organic Act of Guam to vest

the Supreme Court of Guam with authority over all inferior courts in the Guam judiciary, including the Superior Court of Guam and any such other lower courts as may be established by the laws of Guam.

A quick understanding of the history and evolution of the local judiciary in Guam reveals the need for this legislation. Guam's Organic Act, passed in August of 1950, provided for the organization of the territorial government. Therein, the judicial branch of the Government of Guam was created, which consisted of a district court of Guam having the jurisdiction of a district court of the United States and designated as Guam's appellate court to hear appeals from the local court.

In 1973, Guam's leaders made their first attempt at creating a Supreme Court of Guam, but that court's existence was short lived. The establishment of the first Supreme Court of Guam was ruled inorganic by the United States Supreme Court in the Territory of Guam v. Olsen. In rendering this decision, the United States Supreme Court held the Organic Act of Guam did not authorize the transfer of appellate jurisdiction from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to a locally established appellate court.

In 1984, in response to the United States Supreme Court decision, Congress amended the Organic Act of Guam through the passage of an Omnibus Territories Act, Public Law 98-454, and granted the Guam legislature the authority to establish a local appellate court. In 1993, the Guam legislature exercised its authority and created the Supreme Court of Guam through passage of local law.

However, in authorizing the creation of a Supreme Court of Guam, the Congress left the newly created court subordinate to Guam's other two branches of government. Guam's executive and legislative branches are established in the Organic Act of Guam, which in lieu of an adopted constitution serves to provide the framework and powers for the territory's executive and legislative branches.

As the current judicial structure is established in Guam law, it can be subject to manipulations based upon shifts in control of Guam's executive and legislative branches. Currently, the Guam legislature and the Guam executive branch have the power to abolish the Supreme Court of Guam, and, as such, may infringe upon the judiciary's independence.

H.R. 2400 would remedy this situation by making the Supreme Court of Guam an ``Organic'' court equal in stature to the other branches of government and providing the Guam judiciary the same protection as the other branches have in their status under the Organic Act of Guam. Just as the Governor cannot disband the legislature and the legislature cannot abolish the executive, so too should the judiciary be free from the threat of abolishment by the legislative or executive branches if their judicial decisions are found to be unpopular at any given point in time.

Madam Speaker, judicial independence cannot and should not be taken for granted. As Guam's self-governance continues to advance, the legal rights of the people of Guam should not be left to the discretion of the political branches. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No. 78, ``There is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and the executive powers.''

An independent judiciary is in its purest form accountable only to the rule of law, not other political actors. H.R. 2400 seeks to solidify such an independent judicial structure for the government of Guam in the Organic Act in the highest traditions of American federalism.

The version of the legislation we are considering today, Madam Speaker, is in the same form as reported out by the Committee on Resources in the 107th Congress. This bill has evolved since it was first introduced in the 105th Congress by my predecessor, former Congressman Robert Underwood, as the Guam Judicial Empowerment Act, and in its current form reflects improvements suggested by the U.S. District Court of Guam and the Committee on Resources.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill to amend the Organic Act of Guam in recognition of the importance of having a strong judiciary and in furtherance of Guam's efforts to achieve the greatest amount of self-governance possible.

Madam Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the Governor of Guam, the Honorable Felix P. Camacho, in support of establishing Guam's judicial branch in the Organic Act of Guam; a resolution from the 27th Guam Legislature urging passage of H.R. 2400; and a resolution in support of the bill from the Judicial Council of Guam.

Office of the Governor of Guam,

Hagatna, Guam, May 7, 2004.

Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo,

Congresswoman, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Madeleine: This letter is written in reference to H.R.

2400, a bill to amend the Organic Act of Guam for the

purposes of clarifying the local judicial structure of Guam.

I stated in previous testimony in reference to a similar

bill introduced by your predecessor in the 107th Congress,

``I certainly support the independence of all branches of

government, inclusive of the judicial branch of Guam.'' As

the Chief Executive of our Territory, I certainly appreciate

our tri-partite form of government which was crafted by the

founders of our great nation and unanimously adopted by the

states of our union. I fully recognize that the effectiveness

of our system of government, both on the federal and local

level, rests in checks and balances. To this end, I recognize

that the judicial branch of our Territory, like our executive

and legislative branches, must be ``constitutionally''

established or in our case, have an ``Organic'' existence

with similar powers to govern, reorganize, manage and account

for its branch with judicial independence founded under our

U.S. Constitution. To the extent H.R. 2400 furthers this

principle, I am supportive of your efforts and the assistance

of your colleagues.

My personal preference is for our tri-partite structure of

government to be established in a Guam Constitution. Further,

the specifics of the internal operation of our judicial

branch should be established locally. However, I am cognizant

that since I submitted my previous testimony to Congress on

this issue, local law affecting the Guam judiciary has

changed. In addition, until Guam adopts its own constitution,

the Organic Act functions as Guam's de facto constitution.

For these reasons, I support your efforts to establish Guam's

judicial branch in our Organic Act.

With Warm Personal Regards,

Felix P. Camacho,

Governor of Guam.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3087 and to offer my continued commitment to passing a long-term surface transportation bill that will adequately fund the transportation needs of our Nation.

Investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure is central to a strong economy. High-quality roads enable the efficient movement of people and goods throughout the country, facilitate just-in-time delivery and move interstate and international trade across our borders. By contrast, congestion and traffic gridlock cause workers and others to lose valuable time and result in dramatically higher fuel consumption. Improved transit systems contain unban sprawl, promote economic growth and get people to work and to entertainment in a cost- effective, environmentally friendly manner. I firmly believe that a strong investment in transportation infrastructure will provide a stimulus for economic growth at a time when our economy needs a kick start.

An efficently operating transportation system is vital to the economic health of my home State of Michigan. As the global center of the automobile industry, our manufacturers, among others, depend on the ability to ship and receive their products without delay. Manufacturers in West Michigan must be able to get their component parts to their destinations ``just in time'' for their use in the manufacturing process. This sytem breaks down when delivery trucks are struck in traffic, causing significant lost productivity.

The national economic and social costs of congestion are staggering: $67 billion annually in lost productivity and wasted motor fuel; 3.6 billion hours of delay; 5.7 billion gallons in excess fuel; 1,160 in costs to the average peak road traveler; and more than a week-and-a- half of work (62 hours a year) per worker lost while sitting in gridlock.

My constituents have been calling out for Congress to take steps to stimulate our economy. What better way to do so than to pass a robust, long-term transportation infrastructure bill?

I understand that this short-term extension is necessary to keep our surface transportation programs operating past September 30 and to give us more time to complete our work on a long-term bill. I also understand that this extension will not make major programmatic or funding changes from our current programs. But, I do want to take this opportunity to make one comment about funding equity. Michigan ranks 48th out of all States in terms of the rate of return for all federal highway funds. Michigan currently receives only a 43 percent return for transit funds. Since the inception of the federal highway system in 1956, Michigan has paid $1.71 billion more into the Highway Trust Fund than it has received back, the fourth highest amount among all States. I am a cosponsor of Mr. DeLay's SHARE bill to mandate a 95 percent rate of return for highway funds for all States, because Michigan needs to get its fair share. I also support the Transportation Committee leadership's reauthorization funding levels because their proposal will help bring equity to transportation funding and help bridge the historic gap between donor and donee States. We must pass a long-term bill that will address the equity needs of donor States and provide necessary improvements to our roads, bridges and transit systems.

I look forward to continuing work with Chairman Young and my fellow Members of the Transportation Committee on the reauthorization of TEA- 21.

Mr. Speaker, this stopgap measure is needed to give the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and our colleagues on the Senate authorizing committees time to finalize the long-term surface transportation authorization bill.

Though much work has been done on the bill, there are challenges remaining, including identifying the needed resources to support a $375 billion level of funding over 6 years and addressing the concerns of donor States who want to get a better return on their contribution to the Highway Trust Fund.

This short-term extension is a must-pass bill. If Congress does not pass a bill and send it to the President before the end of the month, four Department of Transportation agencies will close their doors and furlough their employees: The Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

Without passage of this extension, new highway projects will be shelved, safety grants will not be provided to States, transit construction will be halted, and Federal enforcement of motor carrier safety regulations on the highways and at the borders will end.

The bill before us provides over $17 billion in new funding authority, which reflects 5 months' worth or \5/12\ths of the budget authority and associated outlays in the 2004 budget resolution that Congress passed earlier this year.

Some groups have expressed concern about a provision in H.R. 3087 that allows the temporary transfer of funds among core highway programs to give States flexibility, if needed, in administering their programs under a short-term extension. However, this bill provides that any transfers will be restored when the next highway bill and transit authorization bill is passed.

When this provision was included in the surface transportation extension bill that bridged the gap between ISTEA and TEA-21, nearly half the States did not utilize this authority at all, and every State fully restored all transferred funds. We will monitor this process closely again to ensure that increased flexibility does not lead to funds being used for ineligible purposes, and that funds are not needlessly transferred.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 3087 today. It is vitally important that this bill be passed by both the House and Senate and delivered to the President before September 30. Our economy cannot withstand the shutdown of the national surface transportation program.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California is correct. Section 3(c) specifically states that the transferability provision applies only during this 5-month period, and any funds used will be restored.