Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 5183) 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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this rule and the underlying bill are for an 8-month extension of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century, TEA 21. It marks the sixth extension of that landmark legislation since it expired last year and reveals, once again, the rank and utter incompetence of the Republican leadership to get a transportation reauthorization bill. This extension, while absolutely necessary to keep the Nation's highway and transportation agencies running is, simply stated, another glaring failure of the Republican leadership in this session of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, let us pause for a moment to remind everyone of the facts. They are in charge of the White House. They are in charge of the Senate, and they are in charge of the House of Representatives. The transportation reauthorization bill is one of the most strongly supported, popular and bipartisan measures to be considered in the House. The programs authorized in this bill touch every American and affect their lives every single day. There are probably only a handful of Members who do not want to see a transportation bill reauthorized for another 6 years. Nevertheless, this President and the Republican leadership, which have presided over a historic loss of more than 2 million American jobs, are stonewalling a transportation bill which will create 47,000 new jobs for every $1 billion of investment.

The refusal of this leadership to work in good faith with the other body is costing our economy precious jobs, while the condition of our roads and bridges continue to deteriorate. Instead of providing real leadership, the majority party and the President have let the conferees twist in the wind while we continue to pass short-term extension after short-term extension of these important programs. The States, which we were elected to represent, are left to guess at when we will have a transportation bill, as they endeavor to undertake critically important public works projects. According to the American Association of State Highway Transportation officials, 33 States say that a short-term extension rather than enactment of a 6-year bill will mean $2.1 billion in project delays and the loss of over 90,000 jobs.

Now, I understand that the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and everybody on the committee are doing the best they can given the Draconian allocations set by the Republican leadership. The members of that committee, the bipartisan cooperation of that committee deserves to be praised by all of us, and it should be an example to the rest of this body. I support these extensions because we cannot afford to let these programs expire. But it is important to know that the leadership of this House and the administration have not done all they can to ensure that the full reauthorization is completed and signed before the programs expire.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the President is the leader of his party. Where is the leadership? The transportation bill will provide every American with the roads and bridges that they need. It will provide economic stimulus across the country with various projects that are written into it. And, most importantly, this bill will create new jobs at a time when new jobs are desperately needed. But instead of looking out for the American public, the leadership and the President have held on to their ideology to the detriment of this country.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say again that while I support this extension, I am disappointed and discouraged by the way the leadership has so profoundly mismanaged this process, and I hope that we can do better next year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York, for his comments. I always enjoy listening to his interesting spin on things.

The fact of the matter is, the problem is not with the authorizers. The authorizers have done a great job. As I said, we need to praise, in a bipartisan way, the members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. But the problem is with the leadership, and the problem is with the White House who is insisting on unbelievably low numbers for the reauthorization of this bill.

As a result of not having a 6-year bill, there are a number of States that have put projects on hold, and that means that these projects are not being built. They are not going forward. The jobs are not being created. We should have done better.

We are all going to support this extension. We have to. We have no

choice. This is the right thing to do. I am just lamenting the fact that we should have had a 6-year bill, and I regret that the White House and the leadership were not able to get together and make this a priority, especially at a time when there is record job loss.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

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

Let me be clear to everybody here, because the gentleman from New York keeps on talking about this in terms of a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote. We are all going to vote for it because there is no other choice. Nobody is opposing the extension here. What we are simply saying is they have mismanaged this process.

He talks about jobs that could be maintained. Well, we want to not only maintain jobs, we want to create them.

Let me repeat to him, according to the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, 33 States say that a short-term extension rather than enactment of a 6-year bill will mean $2.1 billion in project delays and the loss of over 90,000 jobs. If we did our job right in this House, then this would not be the case. There would be more jobs coming.

I would remind the gentleman, again, I am pretty sure that one party, one party, controls the House and controls the Senate and controls the White House. Contrary to what the gentleman says, this is not about finger-pointing to point out that you guys cannot get your act together.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and let me just conclude for our side here by saying that this debate is not about whether or not we are going to support this extension. We are all going to support it. That is not the issue.

What we are expressing here is a frustration that we do not have a 6- year bill. And contrary to what the gentleman from New York says, most transportation planners that I have talked to, and I am sure he has talked to, if he has listened to them, would tell him that a 6-year bill is better than an 8-month extension for this reason: that many transportation programs require long-term planning. It is not a quick one-time investment. With an 8-month extension there is not the certainty of what happens after 8 months.

My point earlier was simply that this is another missed opportunity by this leadership. The Republicans control the House, they control the Senate, and they control the White House. Surely, surely they could have worked out a deal. Surely they could have helped accomplish a 6- year extension. That is what the frustration is on this side.

Our Governors and our mayors and our town managers and our city planners are all looking for a long-term guarantee of funding, and they are not going to get that. They are going to get an 8-month extension. And, yes, that is better than nothing. We need to keep this funding going. But the fact is they cannot plan long term; and as a result of that, we are not going to create as many jobs. The future for some of the economic development that we all hoped for that will come from some of these projects will have to be put on hold, and I think that is a shame.

So I want to commend the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and all the Members who have worked hard in a bipartisan way. I only wish that their spirit of cooperation would have translated to the leadership of this House and the other body and the White House. We should be doing so much better than this. We should be passing a 6-year extension right now.

So I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule, and I urge them to vote for the extension; and, hopefully, we will, sooner rather than later, get a 6-year bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 811, I call up the bill (H.R. 5183) 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, much has been said during the rule about the obvious need for this extension, and I will agree with those who say we need a finalization of the 6-year

bill; but this extension gives us time to allow the States to go forth with their construction, with their projects that are necessary, and to keep some stability in our continued efforts to improve the transportation system in this great Nation of ours.

I truly believe this will be the last extension. I have endeavored and will continue to work until we sine die to try to make a finalization of the 6-year bill. I want to make sure everybody understands that just because this is an 8-month extension, it does not mean we have to wait 8 months to get it done. If I can get it done next week, we are going to get it done. If I can get it done the week after that, if we are not here, I cannot do that, but if we can get it done during the lame duck, we can do it then. Or we can do it in February, March, April, May, June, July, or in that period of time. Whatever we have to do, we will do to continue to improve our transportation system in our great Nation.

May I suggest, respectfully, since some have spoken on this bill about the reauthorization, our committee has done its work. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), I see, is managing the bill today instead of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). We are going to miss him. He is no longer going to be with us next year, but he has done his work as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has done his work; the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) has done his work. We have done our work, and we have passed this legislation over to the other body.

Now, we can point a lot of fingers and we can say this guy, that person, this other person in the other body did not do it; but in reality there is a difference of philosophies. I personally will say that when we passed this bill in the House, I had $375 billion. That is the number I would like to have. Well, a lot of us would like to have some things which we cannot achieve. We have agreed and we have worked with the other body, and we did reach a number that, to me, was a great victory, $299 billion of contractual authority, $284.3 as obligated dollars, real dollars, with policies and philosophies in the bill. We reached those agreements. But, unfortunately, on both sides of the aisle there are some people in the other body that desire more, and we were unable to reach that agreement because it was not there.

I would have liked to have had what we agreed to, because I think it was the appropriate way to go. It did not mean it would be the final number, but we did not and were not able to achieve that. Consequently, we are here for this extension. As they said in the rules debate, this extension is badly needed to continue the stability of our transportation system.

But I will commit to this House and to this Nation that this committee will continue to work to finish this job and to work with the other body to arrive at a conclusion that I think is long overdue.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to this body that we are on the cusp of a disaster in transportation if we do not act soon. We are gathering in population more each day. We are importing more each day, we are exporting more each day, and we are becoming more congested each day. I am hoping that my State Governors, my State legislators, my State department of transportation and my mayors, all those people understand they too have to participate in solving this problem. It just cannot come from this body. They too must participate with ambitious and visionary ideas in helping to solve our transportation problems.

We all must work together. If we do not, we do not leave the appropriate legacy behind us so this country can continue to grow. I will say, Mr. Speaker, there are some in this country that do not want to improve the transportation system, because they realize if they do not improve upon it, then our ability to be competitive and to be the leaders of the free world will not occur. So I suggest to this body we must awaken the people and make sure they understand the effect upon them and they must respond and ask us, and, yes, their local legislators, their Governors, their mayors, and those people who lead them to say yes to participate together with us so we can solve this problem.

Mr. Speaker, this extension is necessary, and I urge passage of the extension.

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

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

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

In closing, this is a time that is always difficult for someone who has served with something for so long, but I will tell the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) we are going to miss him. We are going to probably see him. But as Members leave this body that have contributed to not only their districts but the Nation, it is a loss. We know that. I know he knows that. But I also respect his desire to go and do bigger and greater things. But I look forward to seeing him back on the Hill during this period of time in the near future so that we can communicate and work together on a cause that he has great feeling for, and that is transportation. And he can be assured that I will always be there to hear his wisdom, and he can be sure that I and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) are going to accomplish the goals along with our subcommittee chairman on this transportation bill, I hope in the near future. If we cannot, it will be, not in the far future, but in the close future. So, again, I wish him Godspeed and be well on his travels. We will miss him.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

I know my good friend from Oregon is a good soldier, and I understand what he is trying to do, but I hope no one takes it too seriously because this would kill this legislation that we have today for an extension of our highway program which would cost us about 150,000 immediate jobs, disrupt all State programs, all projects in districts and, in fact, create chaos. And there is a time problem because the reality is that this has to be signed by the President tonight or it does come to a halt. And so what we have to do now is pass this legislation, vote against this motion to recommit, pass this legislation and send it over to the Senate. And I am not speaking too broadly about the Senate because we do not control it, and I know I am not supposed to mention it. But the other body must also act. And then it has to get on an airplane and be flown to Florida because there is the big debate tonight. And he has to sign it. I am sure it is not a big deal with the President, but it is necessary for highway projects.

And just tongue in cheek, to the gentleman from Oregon, the way his motion to recommit is that each number in the bill would have to be raised 12.84, 12.85 percent, and that means that H.R. 5183 would no longer be H.R. 5183, it would be, I guess, 52.6 or something, and all the numbers in the bill, instead of section 22, it would have to be section 22.8 and on down the line.

I understand the reasoning why, but I do urge my colleagues to think very seriously about it. Let us keep the course. Vote against the motion to recommit and then pass this legislation so we can continue our transportation needs in this country, not to the degree we want but what is necessary at this time.

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