Department of Veterans Affairs Nurse Recruitment and Retention Act of 2004

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 3936) to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the principal office of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to be at any location in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, rather than only in the District of Columbia, and expressing the sense of Congress that a dedicated Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center should be provided for that Court and those it serves and should be located, if feasible, at a site owned by the United States that is part of or proximate to the Pentagon Reservation, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 3936, the Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act of 2004. The bill, as amended, represents a compromise agreement between the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Senate on these matters.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the committee's ranking member, for his work on this. I especially want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) for his admirable leadership as chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, where most of these measures originated. He has done a tremendous job as chairman. As a 37-year Army veteran, he has put veterans first and has done so in a way that is extraordinary.

Again, I want to thank him for his work and his meticulous attention to detail. It has made the difference. This bill, regrettably, went through a lot of difficulties and travail, and yet he persevered. And I want to thank our chairman of that subcommittee for his leadership. It has been extraordinary.

I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), the ranking member of that subcommittee. Again, these bills are bipartisan. We have worked together very closely, and it is a pleasure to bring this before the body today.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3936 contains more than 33 measures that would improve the management and the administration of veterans health care programs. I want to highlight just a few of those provisions that are contained in the bill.

The VA's homeless grant and per diem program is an economical, flexible, and innovative approach to housing and supportive services for thousands of homeless veterans. The compromise agreement would increase the

fiscal year 2005 authorization level for VA's grant and per diem program from $75 million to $99 million. The Department requested this increase because it has received far more requests for funding from meritorious potential grantees than it can support under existing funding limits.

Another important provision compromise would direct the Secretary to make payments to assist the 128 State-operated nursing homes in hiring and retaining nursing personnel. These homes provide long-term care to over 38,000 veterans annually in an excellent partnership with the VA, and this provision encourages their efforts to keep highly qualified staff caring for these veterans.

Mr. Speaker, today we are at war overseas. We know war can produce terrible physical injuries, and we must do everything possible for wounded servicemembers. This compromise agreement would authorize the VA to establish, in conjunction with the Department of Defense, a limited number of new centers for research, education, and clinical care to improve rehabilitative services for complex traumatic injuries, such as those being suffered by our brave soldiers and Marines in Iraq. These centers will be a Godsend for these wounded war veterans and for their families.

This bill provides VA authority to enter into a 75-year lease to acquire a medical facility on the new Fitzsimons Campus of the University of Colorado. It is anticipated this Federal-State health sciences campus would share many high-cost specialized services and provide expanded access for Air Force beneficiaries at the nearby Buckley Air Force Base.

I want to recognize and thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez) for his leadership on this important provision and the chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, who has also done yeoman's work on this as well.

Mr. Speaker, our compromise agreement would improve the process for disposing of unneeded VA properties and authorize the proceeds from property transfers to be deposited into a new VA capital asset fund.

The new fund would facilitate transfers, leases and adaptive uses of VA properties, including historic properties. This compromise agreement also includes authorization for naming five VA medical centers, including one in Illinois to be named for the distinguished House minority leader, Bob Michel. Having served with Bob and having great respect for him, I am grateful that this provision is in here, and I want to thank my colleagues for their support for it. It also names facilities in Texas and New York for two heroic Marines who gave their lives for freedom in Vietnam.

Mr. Speaker, the staff of the Committee on Veterans Affairs has worked hard in this Congress to examine ways to provide the best possible health care to those who have earned the honored title of ``veteran.'' I would like to recognize the staff of the Subcommittee on Health: John Bradley, staff director; Dolores Dunn and Kathleen Greve, professional staff members; Susan Edgerton, Democratic staff director; and VA detailee Rosalind Howard. I would also like to thank our full committee staff, Pat Ryan to my left, chief counsel and staff director; Kingston Smith, deputy chief counsel; Jeannie McNally, legislative coordinator; and Jim Holley, Democratic staff director.

I also thank the Senate committee staff director, Bill Tuerk, and Bill Cahill, III, professional staff member. I also thank Kim Lipsky, Alexandra Sardegna and Amanda Krohn of the Democratic professional staff for their contributions. This has been a true collaborative effort.

Again, I thank all who have participated in shaping, crafting and making this an extremely valuable bill that will soon be on the desk of President Bush for his signature.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 3936.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3936, the Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act of 2004.

H.R. 3936, as amended, represents a compromise agreement between the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the House and Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Evans, Ranking Member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, who has helped to shape this particular legislation. Also, I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Simmons, for his outstanding leadership as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, where most of these measures originated. Finally, I thank the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Rodriguez, the Ranking Member, who has worked in a bipartisan effort to help craft this and numerous other important veterans' health bills during his time in Congress.

Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Graham of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee also contributed to the legislation before the House today.

Mr. Speaker, VA's homeless grant and per diem program provides competitive grants to community and faith-based organizations that offer transitional housing or comprehensive service centers for homeless veterans. This program is an economical, flexible and innovative approach to housing and supportive services for homeless veterans in all 50 States and in the District. Over 6,000 beds are now available nationally to veterans through this vital community network. In 2003, 66 percent of the veterans discharged from these VA-funded programs went on to either independent living or residential-program housing. The compromise agreement will increase the fiscal year 2005 authorization level for this key program from $75 million to $99 million. The department requested this increase because it has received far more requests for funding from meritorious potential grantees than it can support under existing funding limits.

Another important provision in this compromise agreement would direct the Secretary to make payments to assist states in hiring and retaining nursing personnel at State-operated nursing homes for veterans. The 128 State veterans' homes collectively represent the largest institutional provider of long-term care to elderly veterans, now caring for over 38,000 veterans annually in 47 States. I am personally aware of staffing difficulties that the three New Jersey State veterans' homes in Vineland, Paramus and Menlo Park have faced over the past several years in their efforts to recruit and retain quality nursing staff to those homes. We need this new incentives program all across the country. It would allow State homes currently receiving per diem payments from VA with established employee-incentive programs to apply for assistance to retain and recruit their nurses. This provision encourages their efforts to keep highly-qualified staff caring for veterans.

Another provision affecting the State home programs would specify that per diem payments made by VA to States for the care of veterans in these homes may not be used to offset or reduce third party payments made to assist veterans, whether from private, State or other Federal sources.

There is well established history of partnership between the Federal and State governments providing care for veterans. This originated with the first Federal law in 1888, providing $100 per year in aid to States to help alleviate the burden of caring for sick and disabled soldiers. This partnership and the first annual payments preceded the advent of the Veterans Administration and the State Home program as we know them today--but Congressional intent has remained constant and clear. Since 1960, Congress has taken an active role in expanding the State home programs to include four levels of care, increased per diem payments and grant funding for construction of facilities. The Congress and its Veterans' Committees are adamant that this partnership and the mutual reliance by VA and the States should not be inadvertently affected by the rules of any other program which is not specifically targeted at caring for aged and infirmed veterans.

Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago, with Public Law 102-585, it was acknowledged that women who experienced sexual trauma while on active military duty may undergo a variety of psychological and physical health effects requiring special counseling. This law authorized VA to provide mental health counseling for these women veterans. Two years later, eligibility for VA sexual trauma counseling and treatment was broadened in Public Law 103-452 to include veterans of either gender who experience sexual trauma while serving on active duty. H.R. 3936 would make permanent VA's authority to provide sexual trauma counseling to veterans.

Mr. Speaker, the shortage of nurses throughout the United States is well documented and VA must position itself to take advantage of all opportunities available to deal with this shortage. H.R. 3936 would establish a pilot program to evaluate the use of proven private sector techniques, such as employer branding, interactive advertising, automated staffing systems and the use of outside recruitment agencies and online technologies to improve VA's program for recruiting nursing personnel.

Mr. Speaker, how well we know that we are at war overseas. We know war can produce

terrible physical injuries. In previous wars, many soldiers did not survive the very serious injuries of the kind being seen in Iraq and Afghanistan today. The means were not available for quick evacuation to sophisticated medical treatment. Today military medical treatment capabilities have greatly improved for complex traumatic injuries.

However, Mr. Speaker, this success creates new challenges for the caregivers who have patients with complex traumatic injuries. The compromise agreement will authorize VA to establish in cooperation with the Department of Defense a limited number of new centers for research, education and clinical activities to improve rehabilitative services for these veterans. I particularly want to thank Senator Bob Graham, Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, for his work in helping us reach agreement on this provision. These centers will be a godsend for these wounded war veterans and their families.

Mr. Speaker, the delivery of health care in this country and in the VA system has undergone a profound transformation over the last decade. Once a hospital based health care system, today's VA has made a significant shift from inpatient to outpatient services, with tremendous growth in the number of enrolled veterans. Yet, much of VA health care bricks-and-mortar infrastructure was designed and built decades ago--some parts of it over a century ago--in a bygone era of health care delivery when long stays in the hospital were the norm.

In 1999, a General Accounting Office report not surprisingly found that VA's cost of operating and maintaining its large inventory of old buildings was a huge and avoidable drain on resources. In the years since that GAO report, VA has undergone a major initiative referred to as the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) initiative, to assess the best use of VA's capital assets for the veteran population to be served, and to use resources more effectively to improve health care delivery to these veterans.

While awaiting the CARES recommendations, little was done by the Department to upgrade VA's physical plants. This legislation is consistent with the CARES recommendations and would provide VA the needed authority to execute leases for 16 community-based outpatient clinics at a cost of approximately $24.4 million, in fiscal year 2005, in the States of California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. Most of these leases will upgrade existing clinic locations. All of these leases were requested by the VA.

Mr. Speaker, this bill also provides VA authority to enter into a 75- year lease to acquire a medical facility on the Fitzsimons Campus of the University of Colorado in Aurora. It is anticipated that a new federal-state health sciences campus would share many high cost and specialized services, and also would provide expanded access to care for Air Force beneficiaries from nearby Buckley Air Force Base. I want to recognize and thank the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Beauprez, for his leadership in developing this good Federal health policy to serve the people of Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, our compromise agreement would improve the process for disposing of unneeded VA properties and authorize the proceeds from these property transfers to be deposited into a new VA Capital Asset Fund. The new fund would defray VA's cost of transferring property including demolition, environmental restoration, historic preservation and establishment of new health facilities. This bill would authorize appropriations of $10 million in seed money to launch the fund to support these initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, the VA has one of the largest federal inventories of properties with significant historic value. In fact, 24 VA medical center campuses are already listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and even more are eligible for this designation. This compromise agreement would allow the Secretary to enter into new partnerships or agreements with entities dedicated to historic preservation, and to use the funds in the Capital Asset Fund to facilitate transfers, leases or adaptive uses of those historic properties that are no longer useful for VA health care. Thus, this compromise agreement would protect history and at the same time the way to new uses of structures that have served their purposes for veterans.

Mr. Speaker, this compromise agreement includes authorization to name VA facilities to honor two heroic Marines who gave this country the greatest measure of their personal devotion, giving their lives in combat to save others in Vietnam. Lance Corporals Thomas E. Creek of Texas and Thomas P. Noonan, Jr. of New York were each posthumously awarded the Nation's highest military decoration, the Congressional Medal of Honor, for their selfless deeds.

The late James J. Peters of New York, a war hero in Vietnam, and a leader of paralyzed veterans after his service, would also be honored by our naming a VA outpatient clinic in the Bronx in his memory.

Further, Mr. Speaker, a VA facility in Illinois will be named in honor of our distinguished former House Minority Leader, Bob Michel, and a facility in Texas will be named in honor of the public service of another former Member of this House, Charles Wilson.

Mr. Speaker, under current law, VA must comply with a variety of Federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to the collecting, handling and disposing of medical waste. Failure to adhere to these laws and regulations could place patients, VA employees and their communities in hazardous situations, as well as subject VA to civil or criminal penalties. This bill would provide a means for Congress to evaluate the effectiveness of VA's medical waste management policies and determine whether additional procedures are needed to reduce environmental and heath risks. The costs of waste disposal would be assessed as well. The bill would require VA to establish and maintain an inventory of medical waste management activities in VA facilities and report to Congress on its inventory, regulatory compliance, and violations of record, along with plans for management improvements.

Mr. Speaker, the staff of the Veterans' Affairs Committee has worked hard in this Congress to examine ways of providing the best possible health care for those who have earned the honored title of ``veteran.'' I would like to recognize the staff of the Subcommittee on Health: John Bradley, Staff Director, Dolores Dunn and Kathleen Greve, professional staff members; Susan Edgerton, Democratic Staff Director, and VA detailee Rosalind Howard. I'd also like to thank our full Committee staff: Patrick Ryan, Chief Counsel and Staff Director; Kingston Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel; Jeannie McNally, our Legislative Coordinator; and Jim Holley, Democratic Staff Director.

Finally, I want to compliment the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee staff: Bill Tuerk, Staff Director and Chief Counsel; and Bill Cahill III, professional staff member. I also want to recognize Kim Lipsky, Alexandra Sardegna and Amanda Krohn, of the Democratic professional staff, for their contributions to this bill.

For the benefit of my colleagues, I include at this point in the record a joint explanatory statement describing the compromise agreement we have reached with the other body.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks, and include extraneous material on H.R. 3936, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, one final word on homeless veterans: these veterans who need services and a place to lay their heads have difficult problems. VA's programs and the hundreds of community and faith-based programs that serve in partnership with VA work miracles with many of them. The continuation and expansion of these programs with the goal of eradicating chronic homelessness in the veteran population has been one of my top goals as Chairman of this Committee. I intend to further address this program in the next Congress, so that those who once wore the nation's military uniform and who are now homeless. These veterans need a hand up to turn their lives around, and we should provide that hand.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure to enhance health care for veterans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues, I include at this point in the Record a joint explanatory statement describing the compromise agreement we have reached with the other body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the author of the law, the Millennium Health Care Act, which has made a tremendous difference on behalf of our seniors who are veterans who need long-term health care.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4231) to provide for a pilot program in the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve recruitment and retention of nurses, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

(Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 4231, as amended, the Department of Veterans Affairs Nurse Recruitment and Retention Act of 2004. I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Health, my friend and colleague, for introducing this legislation, and for his astute judgment and perseverance that was essential in bringing this bill before the House today. I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), as well the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), because, again, that partnership is so important in bringing these veterans bills to the floor; and I want to thank them for their leadership as well.

As amended, H.R. 4231 would authorize several new and innovative approaches to help the VA maintain the quality of its workforce in all VA health care facilities. The bill would establish a pilot program to use outside recruitment agencies with interactive and online technologies to improve VA recruitment of vital nursing personnel. It would also allow the VA to offer three alternative work schedules for nurses so that employment in VA can be more sensitive to family and personal needs for scheduling flexibility and career development.

It also contains a provision to aid State veterans homes which care for thousands of veterans in need of nursing home care each and every year.

One measure in the bill as reported deserves a moment of discussion, because it caused some concern for members of the committee and organizations whose members might be affected. As reported, the bill would have prohibited VA from denying employment to a State-licensed registered nurse whose educational preparation was other than a baccalaureate degree. There is a well-documented shortage, Mr. Speaker, of trained, registered nurses in the United States. Community colleges in every State have stepped forward to offer professional nursing careers through associate degree preparation. Their success in preparing their students is reflected in the rate at which associate degreed nurses pass required State registered nurse examinations.

Associate degree nurses are systematically and vigorously recruited in almost every health care institution in the United States. In the VA, there is a preference in hiring baccalaureate graduates and a policy of excluding associate degree nurses from internal VA promotions. At a time when nurses are in short supply and when community colleges are the primary source of new nursing graduates, should the VA be emphasizing baccalaureate degrees to the exclusion of others who are fully qualified as professional nurses? We think not.

The committee is concerned that these current VA hiring practices and the variation in these practices noted in the recent report of the VA's National Commission on VA Nursing discouraged nurses with associate degrees from even seeking VA employment. VA's practice of exclusion in the face of high demand and scarcity of nursing personnel discourages qualified nurses from seeking VA employment. This practice also adversely affects VA's ability to retain current nurses.

Following extensive discussions after this bill was ordered reported, the bill before the House today does not include section 4 of the bill as ordered reported. Section 4 was designed to keep the VA competitive with the private sector and to clarify that the lack of a baccalaureate degree could not be the basis to deny nurse employment in a VA facility. However, the aim of the provision was misread by some who believe that the best qualified nurses are those who have a bachelor's degree or some advanced degree in nursing.

Most of us who seek health care look to providers who are competent, compassionate, critical thinkers, good communicators, and who are dedicated to expanding their knowledge of human

susceptibility to disease. None of those qualities are guaranteed to be present in a particular graduate of any health care profession from any school. In the case of nurses, competence is tested by State licensing exams, and only those who pass the exam are licensed to practice in a State or in the VA. The other qualities I mentioned are acquired from associating with and learning from other professionals who possess them. There is no guarantee that any particular licensed professional possesses all of them.

Mr. Speaker, VA's own hiring policy requires that persons with associate degrees in nursing be considered at entry-level positions. The committee supports the underlying premise of this policy, and there should be no discrimination based against persons who demonstrate competence by passing a State examination. Unfortunately, the committee has gathered irrefutable evidence that some VA medical centers did violate VA's hiring policy and discriminated against prospective employees who possessed an associate degree in nursing.

The committee has recently received assurances, however, from the acting Under Secretary for Health that the VA will correct these improper practices. He has pledged that the VA will continue to adhere to its policy of considering appointment of licensed, registered nurses to entry-level positions without regard to the institution that granted them their nursing degree. In addition, the Under Secretary promised to undertake a number of significant steps to address any lingering effects from the improper recruiting practices which the committee discovered.

In light of this commitment and the VA's concern about the potential inadvertent effect of this language, the bill before us today does not contain the nursing qualification provision as ordered by the committee.

The committee looks forward to full reports on the execution of the several commitments made in a letter signed by Under Secretary on September 21 of this year, and I will include the letter at this point in the Record.

Department of Veterans Affairs,

Veterans Health Administration,

Washington, DC, September 21, 2004.

Hon. Christopher H. Smith,

Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter provides the Veterans Health

Administration (VHA) position regarding H.R. 4231, Section

4--Appointment of nurses who do not have Baccalaureate

Degrees.

VHA is committed to hiring all levels of licensed nurses

including Bachelors prepared and registered nurses who have

associate degrees or diplomas. In calendar year 2000, VHA

appointed 815 associate degree nurses; in calendar year 2004

to date, VHA has appointed 1,337 associate degree nurses.

Given the national nursing shortage, VHA cannot afford to

overlook associate degree nurses. We recognize and value

their contributions.

In order to further enhance recruitment of associate degree

nurses, VHA is taking the following actions:

1. Instruct Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facility

managers and human resources staff to no longer include in

vacancy announcements language limiting applicants to those

who hold a Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) degree or

convey a preference for a BSN for ``Nurse I'' positions.

2. Continue working with the American Association of

Community Colleges (AACC) to augment our marketing and

recruiting efforts to associate degree nursing graduates. The

Office of Nursing Services in Washington, D.C., will meet

with the AACC on a quarterly basis and will present a

marketing and recruiting strategy to them. An acceptable

plan, including a commitment of VA resources, shall be in

place by June 30, 2005.

3. The Health Care Staff Development and Retention Office

will visit at least one community college nursing program

affiliated with the AACC in each Veterans Integrated Services

Network (VISN) in the coming year, and VA will ensure local

facilities conduct outreach to community college programs. VA

will provide information regarding employment opportunities,

promotion policies, and scholarship and loan repayment

programs available from VA. The first cycle of visits will be

completed by December 31, 2005. In addition, to accomplish

this goal, VISN staff will conduct many of the visits in

coordination with the Health Care Staff Development and

Retention Office.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. Should you

need additional information, a member of your staff may

contact Nevin Weaver, Director, Management Support Office at

202-273-5805.

Sincerely,

Jonathan B. Perlin, MD,

PhD, MSHA, FACP,

Acting Under Secretary for Health.

The last provision in the amended bill I want to mention incorporates the provisions of a bill that I introduced earlier this year, H.R. 4020. That bill would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make increased grants to assist States in hiring and retaining their own nursing personnel at State-owned operating nursing homes for veterans. State homes that currently receive per diem payments from the VA and have established employee incentive programs would be eligible to apply for incentive assistance and could receive up to 50 percent of the annual cost of the incentive program.

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the Civil War, State veterans homes began caring for veterans and are now the largest provider of long-term care to our Nation's veterans. Today, over 16,000 veterans are being cared for in 128 State veterans homes in 47 States in the key partnership between the States and the VA.

The Department of Health and Human Services in 2002 surveyed the 50 States and Puerto Rico to learn how States are responding to the needs of health care workers. Ninety percent reported a shortage of nursing staff as a major concern in their responses. In efforts to respond to these nursing and other health care worker shortages, 44 of the 50 States reporting established task forces and commissions to study and seek solutions. The focus of the task forces or commissions in 25 States was to study shortages in the long-term health care force.

I am aware of difficulties that the three New Jersey State veterans homes in Vineland, Paramus, and Menlo Park have faced over the past several years in recruiting and retaining nursing staff. We can address this effort with new Federal incentives that supplement and assist State initiatives in providing long-term care to veterans. I think this legislation provides a sound blending of authorities to help maintain quality nursing personnel for veterans cared for in both the VA and State-run facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4231, as amended, the Department of Veterans Affairs Nurse Recruitment and Retention Act of 2004.

I want to thank the Chairman of our Subcommittee on Health, my friend the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Simmons, for introducing this legislation and for his astute judgment and perseverance that was essential to bringing this bill before the House today. I also want to thank Mr. Evans, the ranking member of the full committee, and Mr. Rodriguez, the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee for their leadership on this measure.

As amended, H.R. 4231 would authorize several new and innovative approaches to help the VA maintain the quality of its workforce in all VA health care facilities.

The bill would establish a pilot program to use outside recruitment agencies, with interactive and online technologies, to improve VA recruitment of vital nursing personnel. It would also allow VA to offer three new alternative work schedules for nurses so that employment in VA can be more sensitive to family and personal needs for scheduling flexibility and career development. It also contains a provision to aid State veterans homes which care for thousands of veterans in need of nursing home care each year.

One measure in the bill as reported deserves a moment of discussion because it caused some concern by Members of the Committee and organizations whose members might be affected. As reported, the bill would have prohibited VA from denying employment to a State-licensed registered nurse whose educational preparation was other than a baccalaureate degree.

There is a well-ducumented shortage of trained registered nurses in the United States. Community colleges in every state have stepped forward to offer professional nursing careers through associate degree preparation. Their success in preparing their students is reflected in the rate at which associate degree nurses pass required state registered nurse examinations. Associate degree nurses are systematically and vigorously recruited in almost every health care institution in the United States.

In the VA there is a preference in hiring for baccalaureate graduates, and a policy of excluding associate degree nurses from internal VA promotions. At a time when nurses are in short supply and when community colleges are the primary source of new nursing graduates, should VA be emphasizing baccalaureate graduates to the exclusion of others who are fully qualified as professional nurses? We think not.

The Committee is concerned that these current VA hiring practices, and the variation in these practices noted in the recent report of

VA's National Commission on VA Nursing, discourage nurses with associate degrees from even seeking VA employment. VA's practice of exclusion in the face of high demand and scarcity of nursing personnel discourages qualified nurses from seeking VA employment. This practice also adversely affects VA's ability to retain current nurses.

Following extensive discussions after this bill was ordered reported, the bill before the House today does not include section 4 of the bill as ordered reported. Section 4 was designed to keep VA competitive with the private sector, and to clarify that the lack of a baccalaureate degree could not be the basis to deny that nurse employment in a VA facility. However, the aim of the provision was misread by some who believe that the best-qualified nurses are those who have a bachelor's degree or some advanced degree in nursing.

Most of us who seek health care look for providers who are competent, compassionate, critical thinkers, good communicators, and who are dedicated to expanding their knowledge of human susceptibility to disease. None of those qualities are guaranteed to be present in a particular graduate of any health professions school. In the case of nursing, competence is tested by State licensing exams, and only those who pass that exam are licensed to practice in a State or in the VA. The other qualities I mentioned are acquired from associating with and learning from other professionals who possess them. There is no guarantee that any particular licensed professional possesses all of them.

VA's own hiring policy requires that persons with associate degrees in nursing be considered for entry-level positions. The Committee supports the underlying premise of this policy--that there should be no discrimination against person who demonstrate competence by passing a State examination. Unfortunately, the Committee has gathered irrefutable evidence that some VA medical centers did violate VA's hiring policy and discriminated against prospective employees who possessed an associate degree in nursing.

The Committee has recently received assurance from the Acting Undersecretary for Health that VA will correct these improper practices; he has pledged that VA will continue to adhere to its policy of considering appointment of licensed registered nurses to entry-level positions without regard to the institution that granted them their nursing degree. In addition, the Under Secretary promised to undertake a number of significant steps to address any lingering effects from the improper recruiting practices which the Committee discovered. In light of this commitment, and the VA's concerns about the potential inadvertent effects of this language, the bill before the House today does not contain the nursing qualification provision as ordered reported by the Committee.

The Committee looks forward to full reports on the execution of the several commitments it made in a letter signed by the Under Secretary on September 21, 2004. I ask unanimous consent to insert a copy of that letter in the Record at this point.

The last provision in the amended bill I want to mention incorporates the provisions of a bill I introduced earlier this year, H.R. 4020. That bill would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make increased grants to assist States in hiring and retaining their own nursing personnel at State-operated nursing homes for veterans. State homes that currently receive per diem payments from VA and have established employee incentive programs would be eligible to apply for incentive assistance and could receive up to 50 percent of the annual cost of the incentive program.

In the wake of the Civil War, State veterans' homes began caring for veterans and are now the largest provider of long-term care to our Nation's veterans. Today, over 16,000 veterans are being cared for in 128 State veterans' homes in 47 States in a key partnership between the States and the VA.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2002 surveyed the 50 States and Puerto Rico to learn how States are responding to needs for health care workers. Ninety percent reported a shortage of nursing staff as a major concern in their responses. In efforts to respond to these nursing and other health workforce shortages, 44 of 50 States reported establishing task forces and commissions to study and seek solutions. The focus of the task forces or commissions in 25 States was to study shortages in the long-term care work force.

While the HHS study documented the extent of the problems nationally, I am aware of difficulties that the three New Jersey State veterans' homes in Vineland, Paramus and Menlo Park have faced over the past several years in recruiting and retaining quality nursing staff. We can address this effort with new Federal incentives that supplement and assist State initiatives.

State homes are important partners in providing long-term care to veterans. I think this legislation provides a sound blending of authorities to help maintain quality nursing personnel for veterans cared for in both VA and State-run facilities.

Finally, H.R. 4231 would reform the qualification requirements for candidates for the position of Under Secretary for Health. Current law requires the Under Secretary for Health to be a doctor of medicine, limiting the pool of candidates that VA may consider for this vital executive position. Executives in the American health care industry who present exceptional credentials and experience, but did not receive a medical degree as a part of their preparation, are excluded by law from consideration. In fact, of the 62 top hospital, health insurance and managed care organizations in the United States, only five CEOs hold the doctor of medicine degree. H.R. 4231 would repeal the requirement for VA's Under Secretary for health to be a doctor of medicine. This change would allow a future Administration to consider candidates from the widest spectrum of executive talents, including doctors of medicine, nurses, dentists, health academics, health economists, insurance executives and other qualified candidates with the demonstrated abilities to fill such a key leadership role in veterans' affairs.

Mr. Speaker, this is a carefully crafted bill that will advance measures that are important to providing our veterans with quality health care services.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of our time be controlled by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, and just say how grateful I am for his sponsorship of this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 811 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 811 is a closed rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 5183, the Surface Transportation Act of 2004. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule further provides one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure currently has under its consideration the multiyear reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act. The current authorization expires at midnight tonight and the bill before us today provides funding for essential programs for an additional 8 months, through May 31, 2005. This extension is necessary to give the authorizing conferees additional time to agree on a larger reauthorization bill.

This Congress recognizes the many needs of our Nation and is answering the call by diligently working through its process to produce a bill that deals with the Nation's priorities in a whole host of areas.

The final authorization bill will ensure that we have a reliable and stable transportation infrastructure from Federal highways and highway safety to public transportation and motor-carrier safety programs.

In the meantime, the extension before us today authorizes $24.5 billion for the Federal Aid Highway program for highway and bridge construction and safety-related infrastructure improvements. Mr. Speaker, $5.2 billion is authorized for the Federal Transit Administration for grants to State and local transit agencies to reduce congestion and ensure mobility for all Americans in urban and rural areas.

Additionally, the bill authorizes $200 million for highway safety programs, including programs to encourage seatbelt use and prevent drunk driving. The $287 million is authorized for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for truck and bus-related safety programs.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill also releases the final portion of contract authority and obligation authority for

the highway program in fiscal year 2004. This funding was reserved until the end of the fiscal year and is now being used to ensure that States receive at least a 90.5 percent minimum guaranteed rate of return on their Highway Trust Fund contributions.

Without our action today, vital programs and projects under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation will be put on hold. States will not be reimbursed with the Federal share of projects. Safety grants will not be provided to States, and transit construction will be halted, all of which puts jobs at risk.

Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot allow States and transportation projects to suffer. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying extension.

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

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

It is now almost October 1, and we are getting into the election season. I expect the gentleman from Massachusetts to have some finger- pointing going on. But I was here, as he was, when the debate occurred on transportation, and I would say that the authorizers had some pretty good, wholehearted debate that seemed to almost be on the same page between Republicans and Democrats, the majority and the minority of this House.

I would remind all of us that while we had some harmony passing that legislation in the House and apparently in the other body, they had some harmony on what they passed, we have, as we well know as students of government, to pass an identical piece of legislation in the House, in the Senate and the President to sign it, or if he vetoes it, it would require a two-thirds vote in both of the bodies of Congress.

Now, what we have seen, because the other body has publicly debated some of their positions, is that we have disagreements between the House and the other body and we have some from the White House on just what the spending will be. But while we are in an election year, we need to make sure we also get some of the facts back here. And that is that my understanding of this extender, is that the 2005 authorization is using the 2004 levels, and there is absolutely zero loss of anything, that each State will have their money. As a matter of fact, in the underlying legislation, it is my understanding that we will see that the $2 billion that Members on both sides of the aisle worked hard to achieve for their districts will also be distributed to those States under the current formula.

Now, I cannot speak for Massachusetts, but I know, in New York, number one, that is going to be fair and equitable money. Number two, it is still a jobs bill that is keeping my people working across my State and, quite frankly, I think across the 50 States. So when we look at this, we also need to come to terms with a funding level of transportation authorization in a future 6-year bill that is equitable for all of us. And we know that different regions of the country have different viewpoints, and we know that non-mass-transit States have different views than those who are in high-growth States looking to develop further road infrastructure in their communities. It is not an easy bill to put together to get a 6-year consensus in this body, let alone between the House, the Senate, and the White House.

But the important thing that is to be noted today as we preserve those jobs, those jobs are working, and a ``yes'' vote today keeps these projects moving forward and protects those jobs. A ``no'' vote puts people out of work. I will willing to predict, Mr. Speaker, that we will have strong bipartisan support for the extension over the next 8 months.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman and what his view is, but I come from a State that has some complex transportation, from new to old aging infrastructure, to mass transit, to ports, to motor carriers, to dealing with buses and transit systems.

As I look at this, if we keep this moving forward by passing this extender, we are going to keep those projects moving forward to protect jobs. A ``no'' vote puts people out of work. It stops transit.

I have taken great care to listen to the transportation experts, and they assure me of the following. We came here with such great spirit in the House to pass this legislation, and it was bipartisan work. We certainly lauded both the chairman of the full Committee of Transportation and Infrastructure and the subcommittee chairs who put together this complex bill and in a bipartisan fashion. Yes, there certainly are differences of agreement to different aspects of what I see in the other body just from public statements of negotiation. We have also seen that the White House and Department of Transportation has some of their opinions on this bill as well.

I accept the fact that we are getting into the election season, and we are going to have all sorts of consumption going on back home as to what this means. But what my transportation experts of New York say, as well as talking to experts in this body, they tell me that if we do this extension, it is going to maintain the spending in the 2005 authorization and 2004 funding levels and that basically no one will lose any money at all in any of our States or, for the most part, in our districts unless some of the Members do not have a relationship with their State transportation people on some of the priorities that they might be looking for in their State.

It is important to understand, for those who are listening to this debate, that this maintains the spending of a multiyear plan in the extension of 8 months, and it does in the 2005 authorization as well as looking at the 2004 funding levels that are currently available.

My local folks in New York, the State commissioner and his people, tell me that we will be able to continue in the continuity of a complex transportation system by being able to count on this extension and the funding to continue the multiyear projects.

So I do not quite understand the gentleman's aspect of where it starts and stops maybe as he sees the view, because I have been assured that we have continuity of transportation services in a multiyear fashion by extending this.

Again, I must say to my colleagues, a ``yes'' vote today keeps those projects moving forward and protects jobs and protects the work and plans that are in our respective States, and a ``no'' vote just plain stops that or puts people out of work.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon for a question.

I said I yield for a question. I do not want to hear the gentleman's debate on my time.

I thank the gentleman for his question, and what I understand is as follows. Sure, I have projects; I think most Members of this body have specific projects earmarked in our legislation. It is my understanding that the other body would not consider earmarks that we would like to begin in the 2005 project year. Therefore, the compromise of extension, because we have had disagreements between the two bodies and we also have the White House in consideration of getting a final bill, was that we would take $2 billion of funding of Member- earmarked items of 2004 and roll them into our respective States on the existing formulas. That is what makes the States content to have that money back into their aspect of continuing in the projects.

The gentleman's influence, as a member of the Oregon delegation, might put an opportunity where the gentleman could talk to the DOT commissioner and begin their projects based on some of the monies they will receive.

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

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

It is a well-known fact in the House that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is probably the largest of membership in our great body. It amazes me when I look at the members of the committee, that might share from the other side of the aisle, kind of going back and forth between an extension and the 6-year bill, kind of mixing it up.

I just want to make sure we have the record straight, although I have said it so many times in this debate already. The extension does not prejudice the 6-year bill. It actually keeps a continuity of funding levels at the authorization of our budget resolution.

The gentleman is actually continuing, as previous speakers have, to go back and forth between a simple extension that guarantees all States their money and some planning purposes over the next 8 months versus trying to get to a 6-year bill.

I am used to a situation where legislation does not come to the floor as

fast as some Members would want, that there is finger-pointing. I also acknowledge that we have disagreements between the other body, the White House and this on getting a conclusion of a 6-year bill.

But the Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has made sure, with his subcommittee chairmen, that we have an 8-month extension that guarantees each State their money so they can continue in their planning purposes. As I have said before, it clearly says a ``yes'' vote today keeps those projects moving forward and protects jobs. A ``no'' vote puts people out of work and brings that construction to an end.

I also want to make sure that some of these alarmist accusations, that there is clear, on-the-record information so that they do not get caught up without a response. As the previous gentleman talked about the fact of money going all over the place, this bill includes an extension of the budgetary firewalls and spending guarantees for the highway category and transit category. These firewalls and guarantees protect the integrity of the Highway Trust Fund to ensure the highway user-related fees are used exclusively for highway transit and highway safety programs.

I want to just let America know that we extend those protections in this extension of 8 months, just as it was in underlying legislation in the past.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I was listening carefully to the comments of the gentleman, but I was at the point where I wondered if the gentleman intends to vote for the extension or not to vote for the extension, based on your remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said it well, we should vote for this rule and then the underlying legislation. As I opened my remarks, I commented that I understand it is the election season. So many of us have to get up and try to say something for back home on whatever that may be.

I have talked to planners in my years of service, and some planners I know would like to have an exact fund for the entire length of their career in planning. But the reality is that this bill is going to provide an extension and continuity in both planning and money to our respective States. My State, as I outlined earlier, has a complex transportation network and understands that this extension keeps the funding levels the same as it has been. As a matter of fact, the opportunity of all States will have the same funding levels. So we have continuity of our programmatic services and dollars to the States and for them to also distribute as they see fit the monies that will come in this 8-month extension.

It is not easy to formulate an agreement of an extension, and I laud Chairman Young of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and his subcommittee chairman in working with the other body to get a compromise of extension that works so well for our States as we continue this continuity of transportation projects and creating and maintaining the jobs that these construction opportunities exist through the transportation bill. But as we also look here, it is an opportunity for us to continue to get an agreement that both bodies and the White House will look to be a 6-year plan following the extension that is here.

My colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), has been clear. A ``yes'' vote today keeps the projects moving and keeps and protects jobs. A ``no'' vote puts people out of work. The extension will do the job and we can continue in having a multi-year plan of the future based on the results of our actions today. So I call upon my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying extension.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.

October 1, 2003: What is important about that date? That is the date that the last highway bill expired. Here we are, almost a year later, legislation that sets the course of all spending on roads, bridges, highways, mass transit in the United States of America has been in suspended animation working under a 7-year-old law for the last 11 months.

I guess if the Republicans controlled things, things would not be like that; that is the kind of thing we hear around here all the time. They control the White House, the Department of Transportation, the House and the Senate. The White House is low-balling the number and underinvesting in America. They only want to spend $259 billion. They want to take our gas tax money and spend it on other things instead of transportation.

The House did a little better, $283 billion, not enough, but they did better. But they do not want to confront the President in an election year. We could roll them easily. It would be embarrassing, though, just before the election for him to be against jobs and investment in America and spending gas taxes on the purposes for which it was collected. The Senate did a lot better yet, $318 billion.

Then, of course, there was the unanimous bipartisan vote of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, on which I serve, where we voted unanimously for $379 billion, $120 billion more than the President is willing to spend, because that is what the President's Department of Transportation said is necessary to take care of the problems in New York and other States. We need another $120 billion over what the President's asking for to deal with those problems.

It is disingenuous to get up here and say, oh, if we follow these lower numbers, nothing is being hurt. We are foregoing new starts. We are foregoing new investments. We are foregoing additional investments that the President's own Department of Transportation says is necessary. Why? Why are we doing that? We collect gas taxes from each and every American every time they fill up their car, a bunch of them, and that money is supposed to be spent on roads, bridges and highways. We have seen the potholes. I have got failing bridges in my district. We could put hundreds of thousands of people to work tomorrow if we had more investment and more spending.

I cannot understand why they will not spend our gas tax money to put people to work and meet needed investment in our infrastructure. So I stand here saying we should be doing more than just this continuing resolution, obviously. We should have sometime in the last 11 months. The Republicans should have been able to get their act together and agree on a highway bill. That has not happened. Well, if we cannot do that, at least let us put a little more money in there, put a few more people back to work, begin to address some of these problems that are out there, begin to take care of some of the new starts that New York has asked for that cannot go forward under this legislation.

My colleagues cannot say, oh, the transportation experts in New York say this is going to take care of all the problems. It is not. It is not even beginning to address the backlog of problems of failing roads and bridges.

Another interesting statistic from the President's own Department of Transportation is that, for every $1 billion we spend on roads, bridges, highways, mass transit, we create 47,500 jobs; not just construction jobs, but those are good jobs and good wage jobs. And guess what? They cannot be outsourced to another country. That is a really good thing about those jobs, but what it also does is it spills over into communities and small businesses. The suppliers, the contractors, the equipment operators, they are all local. They are locally based. It helps our local communities who need more jobs and investment. It helps small businesses, 47,500 jobs.

So, that means by walking away from the higher numbers proposed by the Senate, that is $318 billion, that we are foregoing $34 billion of investment that is needed to repair our failing bridges, roads, highways and our mass transit inadequacies, new starts in New York and other States. I cannot do the math quite here, but 34 times 47 sounds like a heck of a lot of jobs to me, somewhere around 1.5 million jobs. This country could use another 1.5 million jobs. In fact, if the President would sign a bill at that higher number, then he could say he delivered on his promise of creating 2 million jobs during his presidency. Right now, he is kind of short on that.

This is at best an absolutely minimal stopgap that is not meeting the real needs of Americans, that is not putting people back to work, that is not spending their gas tax money in the manner in which it was intended when it was collected and extracted from them, when they bought gas at the pump.

I would say we have apparently no alternative but to support this inadequate level of funding, but the American people should be aware it is inadequate. It does mean no new starts. It does mean that we are not going to address a whole bunch of problems all around the country, and we can do better.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for his tireless work because this will be his last action on this legislation. I would like to thank my colleagues on the committee and the chairman of the committee for their work. If we ran things, we would have already completed a much more robust investment in our roads, bridges, highways and mass transit here in the United States, putting millions of people to work and beginning to deal with the backlog of projects.

Unfortunately, we not only have to deal with the House, the other body, the Senate and the White House; in this case the White House has been the big problem. What we are doing here today will mean no increase. This will be the second year in a row with no increase in transportation infrastructure spending, even with the accelerating rate of deterioration of our bridges, even with growing congestion, no new starts. This does not get anywhere near what we would consider a good push toward dealing with those problems and putting people back to work. But the White House has chosen this extraordinarily low number, $256 billion. They would essentially underspend the highway trust fund. They collect gas tax from Americans and they would divert some of that money to other purposes by borrowing from it instead of fully investing it in roads, bridges, highways and mass transit. That means we are walking away from a lot of jobs. For every $1 billion we invest in transportation, the estimates are that we create 47,500 jobs, not just direct construction jobs which are good jobs which cannot be outsourced out of the United States, but also spill over into communities, small businesses, equipment providers, suppliers; all those people would benefit dramatically.

If we were to adopt the numbers proposed by the Senate at $318 billion, we would create nearly another 2 million jobs. We could use those jobs. It would also help the President, who is dragging his feet on this, to deliver on his promise of creating 2 million jobs, which he has not done yet and is unlikely to be able to accomplish before November except with the stroke of a pen and signing a bill and showing that he will create them in the future. But he is refusing to do that.

Unfortunately, there is hesitation with going forward with a more robust level and challenging the President. Someone spoke earlier about how the system works, and we have to deal with the Senate and White House, but we have the power to send something to the White House, allow him to veto it, and then override. The first vote I cast in the United States Congress was to override a much more popular President's veto of a highway bill, Ronald Reagan.

This is not only good for the transportation infrastructure, the economy, just-in-time delivery, small businesses, construction workers, it would be of tremendous benefit to the entire economy.

In closing, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). He has been a great mentor and friend to me. I will miss him. I am sure that we will take care of him when we do the highway bill next year. Although we do not know how much money we will have, but if we have lots of money, he will still do well, I am sure, and his State will do well.

Mr. Speaker, I offer motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward motion within the parliamentary constraints of the House. Some might say, because we would ask the bill to be sent back promptly, that we are dooming it to death.

We have been waiting 11 months for a highway bill, 11 months since the last one expired. Give us 2 hours, and we will give them a lot more investment

and a lot more jobs. We can deliver this bill back within 2 hours. The House could pass a bill at the Senate levels this evening.

All across America that would make a big difference. Across the entire country, that would mean that we would have, if we adopted that level ultimately for 6 years, an increase of $37 billion in spending. That is 1.7 million jobs; 1.7 million jobs could be created. We could begin to deal with the 161,000 bridges in this country that are structurally deficient, one in four. My own little State has a $4.7 billion bridge problem.

We are trying to do our own part, as the chairman asked. We have raised registration and other fees. But we need a little bit of help because this is Interstate 5, the federal highway that goes between Canada, Mexico and includes Oregon, Washington, and California. There is some federal obligation, I believe, to help maintain that highway.

This has been a maddening process for those of us who care about transportation, who care about our failing bridges and the potholes and our congestion and the lack of new starts and mass transit, all those things. If we had our way, we would have significantly more investment, according to a unanimous vote of the committee on which I serve, bipartisan. We voted for the number which has been outlined by the President's own Department of Transportation, $375 billion over 6 years. And even that would not take care of all the problems, but it would sure be a lot more to address them. But the President has taken a hard line at $259 billion, far below the number passed by the House, way below the number passed by the Senate, and about one-third below the number recommended by his own experts. This is inexplicable. This is investment. This is paid for out of gas taxes, which each and every American pays every time they tank up their car. We owe them an obligation to make this investment, not to stick with the levels of that are now 6 years out of date under the old legislation but to look at something that will spend more, begin to deal more with the backlog, put more people to work. We could help the President deliver on his own promise. This would create 1.7 million jobs. The President could sign a bill which we could have back and have ready for consideration by five o'clock tonight. He could sign it tomorrow in the Rose Garden, and he could refute the claims of his opponent that he had lost 1.7 million jobs because he would just have signed a bill to create 1.7 million jobs.

For the life of me, I do not understand the reluctance at the White House to invest the people's tax dollars paid for every time they tank up their car in investment in the people's infrastructure, the infrastructure that will benefit not only individuals but businesses all across America who depend upon just-in-time delivery. Just-in-time delivery is pretty hard when they have got to detour a truck over the Cascade Mountains in Oregon, down the far side and then back down again to I-5 because of failed bridges. And that is unique. That kind of thing takes place all across America. Trucks are detouring hundreds of miles out of their way, wasting fuel, wasting time, making us less efficient because the Federal Government says we do not have the money to catch up with this backlog on bridges.

Well, we do have the money. We are taxing the people. We should adopt a more robust level. We should deal with some of the problems and the disparities among the States, the whole issue that States give a whole bunch more in than they get back. But we cannot do that unless we have higher levels of funding. It is impossible.

And that is what this amendment does, very simply. It would bring the bill back later this evening, spending at the levels of the Senate bill, which would put over 6 years, if finally adopted, 1.7 million people to work, 20,000 people in my State, and begin to defray that backlog.

I would hope that we will pass this motion unanimously and make the investment that we need. And I think the President will sign it. I doubt very much he will see fit to veto the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

My staff says that they can do the computer runs and have the numbers within 2 hours, which would give us ample time to get the bill faxed before the President for signature before midnight tonight.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Here we are again doing an extension. In the famous words of President Reagan, there you go again, doing another extension. But, frankly, you might just call this a no-fault divorce. We tried. The other body tried. The two parties in the other body tried. They could not come to a meeting of the minds. They could not come to a meeting of the minds with the White House. The only body that has its act together is this body. The only group that has its act together is this Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We have worked shoulder to shoulder and, may I say, kneecap to kneecap across the table to fashion a bill that is good for America, to move transportation ahead, that would address congestion and safety and mobility of all things in America.

We introduced that bill a year ago at a time when gasoline prices were $1.34 a gallon. They are now consistently well over $2 a gallon all across the country and that 70-plus cents of increase in fuel price, about 60 percent of it, 70 percent of it, is going overseas to OPEC. We are not getting any transportation benefit of that increase in fuel price. Not a penny of that increase in fuel price is going to fill pot holes, build new bridges, improve safety on our highways, build more bicycle lanes.

Incidentally, I must say to the chairman of our committee and ranking member, I thank the ranking member of the subcommittee for managing this bill. It is his last hurrah, if you will, on the House floor in a management position. But I was out on my bicycle doing what I thought was going to be a 20-mile ride this morning, and I got the message that this bill was being called up. It seems the leadership over here just sort of all of a sudden decides in a big rush, this is the time to do this thing without any advance notice. That is not particularly useful. In fact, I was dodging pot holes, cursing the road conditions as most travelers are doing.

But we need to do this. I want to take this opportunity to express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois for his 2-decade tenure in this House, for the partnership that we have had, on aviation, on surface transportation, on railroads, on water resource issues, everything that has affected this committee. He has really devoted his career to the work of this committee. The gentleman has absorbed the subject matter and made it a core of his service in the Congress. He has not only served his district well and his State well; he has served the Nation well. I salute the gentleman from Illinois on this, his last opportunity to manage a major transportation bill.

Perhaps there may be another opportunity. We never know. But it may be the last. One never knows what happens in this body. Winds blow. Conditions change. The barometer rises. The barometer falls. Something happens. It can all happen in the blink of an eye, and we could have a major bill back on the House floor yet before this Congress adjourns.

I regret, frankly, that we are here with an extension, that we are not here doing the TEA-LU bill that the chairman of the full committee and I and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and our committee staff and members have worked so hard to fashion, because we know that at $375 billion, that is the level of investment America needs to move this country ahead, at a time when global mobility at home is a cornerstone of our global presence in international competition in the marketplace.

About 6 months ago, I visited China to speak at an aviation conference and traveled to the city of Laiwu, which is the home of a steel mill which is a part owner in an iron ore mine in my district. I traveled from Jinan 2 hours to Laiwu. Jinan is a city of 6 million people. Laiwu is a city of 1.2 million people. They have a six-lane divided, controlled-access superhighway connecting these two cities, the vanguard of the equivalent of our interstate highway system which China is planning to build in the next 15 years to invest well over $200 billion in improving their mobility, their ability to move goods to market and people to their destinations; and they are doing it with the savings of the Chinese people who have a savings rate of over 60 percent.

They are investing $200 billion in modernizing their ports, they are halfway through a $100 billion airport modernization plan, and we are sitting here, standing here, advancing the cause of transportation by taking the 6-year-old TEA-21 and moving it incrementally forward and saying, sorry, folks, this is the best we can do. That is not right. This committee knows what is right.

Members of this committee have worked hard. They understand transportation problems. They understand what America needs. They understand the needs of mobility. They understand the needs of safety and investment in America. Yet because of ideological

hard-and-fast positions by the White House and divisiveness over in the other body, we cannot move the agenda ahead.

I say, let us pass this bill. Let us inch forward. Let us come back after this Congress has concluded its business and into the next Congress and do the right thing for America. Make the right investments. Let us move America ahead in the way we know it needs to move, keep our mobility, keep our marketplace production and productivity and reduce the cost of moving people and goods in America.

Exactly 1 year ago today we ended an era: The era in which our Nation's transportation policy was governed by legislation establishing a multiyear plan with the funding needed to implement the plan.

During the past year, our national transportation policy has gone forward in fits and starts, by extensions of a month or two.

Just over a year ago, on September 24, 2003, when this House was considering the first surface transportation extension bill, I stated: ``I am afraid . . . we will be back here on this floor once again pleading for another extension of time to keep transportation programs from once again expiring. . . . I do not want to be back on this floor saying again what I said 6 years ago, time is running out.'' What I predicted then has repeatedly proven correct--we have had 5 additional extensions since that day. And here we are today pleading once again for a temporary extension of authorization for highway construction, highway safety, and public transportation funding.

Our inability to enact legislation to reauthorization surface transportation programs is caused by an administration guided by ideology rather than good transportation policy and by the unwillingness of the Republican leadership in Congress to let the people's branch of government work its will.

Analysis by the U.S. Department of Transportation shows that we need to invest $375 billion to maintain and improve our aging infrastructure. On November 19, 2003, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure introduced H.R. 3550, authorizing that same amount-- $375 billion for the highway, transit, and transportation safety programs for the next 6 years. The T&L Committee marked up that legislation and unanimously voted it favorably to the House, but the Republican leadership blocked its consideration because of objections from the administration to the funding level. But that funding level was derived from the administration's own analysis, and the bill, included proposals to fully fund the investments. Nevertheless, our committee was prevented from moving the bill through the legislative process.

That 1-year delay has been costly to our Nation. AASHTO, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, estimated when the first extension was about to expire early this year that failure to enact a long-term reauthorization would mean a $2.1 billion increase in project costs and a loss of more than 90,000 jobs that could have been created a long-term authorization bill.

Today, we continue our muddling through, debating on a measure that would temporarily extend funding authorization for another 8 months before the current extension expires at midnight. This is no way to do business, especially when we are dealing with costly, multiyear transportation projects that require long-term certainty in planning, development, and financing. I can only imagine what further damage we have now done, and at what new financial cost due to another year of inadequate funding levels.

The extension bill now before us provides some modest increase in the investment levels of a number of the highway and transit programs, other programs are less fortunate. Their funding is held constant at the FY 2003 levels. Moreover, the insistence on passing ``clean'' extension bills, Congress has not been able to modify or update current surface transportation programs and policies that are in need of such adjustment.

Overall, this bill would provide $24.5 billion in contract authority for the 8 months ending on May 31, 2005, for highway programs. This is based on $36.76 billion for the entire fiscal year 2005. Of these amounts, $21.3 billion for 8 months is guaranteed. For transit programs, this bill would provide $5.17 billion guaranteed funding for 8 months.

Despite the fact that the funding levels included in our original bill were derived from the Department of Transportation's highway and transit needs report, the administration has strongly opposed additional infrastructure investment. The President's budget to Congress flat-lined the highway and transit programs. The President's bill did not include one additional dollar for highway and transit investment, nor would it produce one additional job in the transportation construction sector, over the next 6 years.

But what's worse is the mess we have created in the last year. The lack of vision, the lack of a clear plan, the continual struggle to give States scraps from the table. We should do better.