Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I have not communicated with the gentleman from Minnesota, because I support what the gentleman wants to do, but I would suggest that if the gentleman from Minnesota and I can reach this agreement, and I am sure we can, we can come out with a resolution out of our committee immediately and bring it to the floor under unanimous consent, because what I think what the gentleman is asking is very legitimate.

I will commit that to the gentleman as chairman of the committee, and I am sure the gentleman from Minnesota and I can work that out. So I give you that commitment.

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

H.R. 889, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005, authorizes funding levels for the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2006 and makes several changes to current law related to the Coast Guard and to the maritime transportation system.

This bill is the result of a bipartisan effort; and I greatly appreciate the efforts of the bill's original co-sponsors, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the subcommittee chairman; the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the full committee ranking member; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), the subcommittee ranking member.

This bill provides the Coast Guard with the necessary resources and authorities to protect the safety and security of lives and property on U.S. waters.

H.R. 889 authorizes a funding level of nearly $8.7 billion for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2006. This authorization level includes an amount of $1.6 billion to accelerate the delivery of new vessels and aircraft as part of the deepwater program. The Coast Guard's legacy fleet is deteriorating at an unacceptable rate, endangering the safety of the Coast Guardsmen on board and the general public.

We must provide the Coast Guard with these new assets, and I urge my colleagues to support full funding for this program this year and in future years.

As this body's only licensed mariner and the representative of the State that includes more than half of this Nation's coastline, I recognize the importance of making certain that the Coast Guard has the tools necessary to carry out its many and varied missions.

Earlier this year, the Coast Guard responded to a major oil spill in my

State and in the district of subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo). While the Coast Guard has recently received a great deal of attention for its important homeland security missions, we must be mindful of the requirements of the Coast Guard's equally important traditional missions.

Mr. Chairman, all of us recognize the exceptional work done by the Coast Guard, often under dangerous conditions in Alaska and all around this Nation.

Mr. Chairman, as I am reminded with the Katrina hurricane, the outstanding agency that worked the best and did their job with honor and dignity was the United States Coast Guard. I am very proud to be affiliated with them, and I urge the strong support of this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his comments.

This budget, although it appears large, is not large enough. The reality is, and I was just sitting here and thinking about it, that the Forest Service budget is $7 billion, and they do not produce anything. They do not save any lives, and they spend $7 billion for what, I do not know. But just to give some comparisons, this really should be more. This is the biggest increase we have ever had, but it should be more for the duties we have given the Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard has 27 new challenges and duties we require of them through this Congress, and only 5,000, I believe, more personnel in the deal; and they have never been funded correctly.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my debate time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and pending that I ask unanimous consent that

the gentleman be permitted to control this time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

My concern is, very frankly, this has been in the manager's amendment for 3 months, and it is not new, but my big concern, and I understand he is trying to make it uniform with, I believe, the airline industry; is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the other concern I have is the Homeland Security Act itself that we passed out of our committee had this provision in it, 7 years; and what I do not want is to preclude someone from being employed in a port, that, if there has been a felony created that is not terrorist related, sabotage related, or secession related, he be precluded from being able to be hired.

Some people say if he is a felon, he should not be hired. I can tell the Members that the business I am in, a lot of people in their earlier years probably got into some sort of trouble sometime, but they are not terrorists. These people are trying to make a good living, trying to provide for society and trying to be helpful to this Nation and are not a threat. I do not want someone unable to obtain employment because of beyond 7 years, 15 years, 20 years, and have that person not be eligible to be employed.

The gentleman has heard this argument before. I believe he was on the Committee on Homeland Security meeting when I presented that, and it was adopted, and it passed on this floor. In fact, it is in the bill. It has not become law because, as the gentleman knows, we have not gone to conference with the Senate.

So I understand what the gentleman is trying to do, but I ask two things from him: if he would consider not offering the amendment, withdrawing it, or not asking for a vote on it, and we will not have a vote on it, or we will, in turn, take care of this in conference, because he and I are going to be on the conference. I know what he is trying to do, but I do not want someone to be punished because they are really good citizens today.

Mr. Chairman, that is what I expect to do. And, again, I think we can work this out. I am just so concerned that, yes, those that have or did have a potential to sabotage and sedition, et cetera, they should not be employed.

Mr. Chairman, other than that, I do not want to have the inability to have someone hired, because they can do the job. So we can work it out.

The gentleman has my word on it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is well established under current law that foreign workers may work on U.S. flag vessels on international voyages to conduct various non-watchstanding functions. These personnel are not considered seamen. This amendment will confirm the legality of this practice.

Also, the amendment clarifies that personnel must possess a transportation security card, when required under the Maritime Transportation Security Act, and I urge Members to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment approves established National Marine Fisheries Service policy regarding the process for approving community development plans in small Alaska communities. The amendment does not in any way change the manner in which these fishery resources are distributed to, or the total amount of fish allocated to, eligible communities. This is a good amendment. It is asked for and the agency itself suggested that we do offer it, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment assures that if a new quota becomes available in certain Alaska fisheries, a portion of it will be distributed to a vessel which currently has no qualifying catch history. This amendment corrects an inequity without taking quota from existing vessels. If no new quota is made available through the normal management process, then the additional vessel does not receive any quota.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, as hard as it is for me, I am going to support the gentleman's amendment, but my concern when I look at it is we have got to make sure that this does not come out of the Coast Guard's budget. It either comes out of Homeland Security or some other arena, and that is what we can work out in this bill when we put it in. Because I do not want the Coast Guard's budget to take money and go into it when they raise that alert state.

So I think the gentleman has got a good idea, and I am more than willing to work with him and see if we can solve it. I agree with the gentleman. Because when they put us on a higher alert, even though it might not even be in the arena of a port, it is a national higher alert, and it is a huge cost, and they have to carry that burden.

As long as we get the money from some other source than the Coast Guard, I am highly in support of it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

First, let me suggest that the statement they are going to bulldoze down thousands and thousands of homes because of Katrina that were not blown down is not true. The EPA gave us a briefing. The gentleman should have sat in on it. If he did not know, they found little toxicity in the water. There was nothing there that was being harmful. There could be mildew, but it is not from the toxicity in the water. I do not like to use the statement. Overexaggeration is not good for debate.

Secondly, may I suggest it is the Coast Guard being required to do another mission, taking from the Coast Guard's real mission and requiring them to do something that should be done with EPA or Homeland Security but not the Coast Guard?

I can tell the gentleman, he serves on the Committee on Homeland Security, I serve on that committee, and I can tell everybody on that committee and this committee, you are not going to whittle away at the Coast Guard having to do things that did not have to do with the mission to begin with. That is not going to happen on my watch.

The idea that the Coast Guard will be required to find an alternative fuel or alternative toxic chemical in place of another, that is the EPA's job, not the Coast Guard.

I do not know why the gentleman does not offer it to the energy bill or to the homeland security bill or some other bill. But why muddy the waters of the Coast Guard and require them again to have another mission? They have enough missions on their plate right now.

I do believe this is a mischievous amendment. I believe that most of it could actually be done in the communities in which they live. I believe that the port cities can make those decisions themselves. Why should the Coast Guard have to do this, taking money away from the mission they should be doing, that search and rescue, saving our seamen, attending to our fishing pirates, doing the things they are charged to do?

I am not going to add another responsibility to this Coast Guard. I had hoped the gentleman would withdraw his amendment. He has made his other statements. He can put this on another piece of legislation. He can argue, but this is a bill we have put together bipartisanwise. It is a bill agreed to by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and it is a bill that should be left intact.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, try 22 years of being in the minority. That is longer than the gentleman has been in the minority.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, I do hope the gentleman will withdraw the amendment for numerous reasons.

I have to acknowledge one thing. He has been allowed to offer this amendment because I asked for an open rule. I did ask for an open rule because I knew the gentleman and some other people wanted an opportunity to use the platform to bring up this type of subject, and I respect that. I just suggest respectfully that this is not the bill to do this on, and I really request the gentleman to think about withdrawing the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to limit voting time to 5 minutes, if ordered, on final passage.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 889, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation and cross-references, and to make such other necessary technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

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 H.R. 889.

Offered By: Mr. Young of Alaska

Amendment No. 11: At the end of title I add the following:

Offered By: Mr. Young of Alaska

Amendment No. 12: At the end of title I add the following:

Offered By: Mr. Young of Alaska

Amendment No. 13: At the end of Title IV add the following:

Offered By: Mr. Young of Alaska

Amendment No. 14: Add at the end of title IV the following:

Offered By: Mr. Young of Alaska

Amendment No. 15: Add at the end of title IV the following:

Mr. Speaker, as the Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I had the great honor to serve as the Chairman of the conference committee for H.R. 3, SAFETEA-LU.

The conference committee had to reach agreement on a broad range of issues to be able to send a bill to the President that he could sign. I want to take this opportunity to clarify what I believe was the intent of the conferees concerning the language that became section 5508, the Transportation Technology Innovation and Demonstration Program. This provision extended a program that began under TEA-21. TEA-21 promised that the initial system contemplated by the program would be built out in greater than 40 areas. I have been a long-standing supporter of this public/private partnership that helps travelers avoid highway traffic congestion. It is currently providing up-to-date and accurate traveler information in areas across the country.

I believe it was the conferees intent that all of the existing $54 million that has been provided for the current contracting team would be used to carry out the existing contract to deploy the current highway congestion information system under Part I. I believe it was our intention that Part I funds would stay in Part I. In this way, if deployment areas do not take advantage of all of the obligated funds, congested cities will have the opportunity to benefit from the $54 million that is currently obligated under Part I and will be able to proceed under the existing contract with the existing contractor. TEA- 21 promised that the initial system would be built out in greater than 40 areas and staying the course with the existing contractor is an important element of keeping that promise. Any funds appropriated for Part II would be recycled within Part II.

Because there is a 180-day clock running for areas to consent to participate in the program, I respectfully urge that USDOT quickly get implementing guidance to the field that is consistent with this intent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation Infrastructure, the Committee on Science, the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on Resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3512) to provide an extension of administrative expenses for 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, pursuant to House Resolution 399, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is truly a great day for the users of our Nation's transportation infrastructure. Today, I bring before you for consideration the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, which will for the future be known as

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the great Speaker of this House. I deeply appreciate his efforts in getting this legislation passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means,

who worked very hard on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), chairman of the great Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to acknowledge the presence of the ranking member, my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). He has been absent from the floor because he was stuck in traffic. What better thing could happen to him today as we pass this magnificent bill. As we can see, he is here. I welcome him here, and we will be discussing this a little later on. Welcome.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this legislation, a unanimous vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee on Science, the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on Resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill ( H.R. 3512) to provide an extension of administrative expenses for 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 in the House.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple extension which is necessary once we pass H.R. 3 to give time for an enrollment and delivering the package to the Senate, which we hope to do tonight, and then after being enrolled on to the President, and that will take some time.

If we do not do this, the Federal Government and the transportation system will be shut down. This has been requested by the administration and by the other body.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

May I remind the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that this was asked for by the administration. This was the length that they wanted to have it, 14 days. To in fact have this extension any longer has not been requested by the administration, and I believe this can do the job. The President has to make the decision. If he wishes to veto the bill, he can do so.

But this has been a request by the administration. This is the eleventh extension we have had on this legislation, and I will be right up front with everybody that I think it is the last one we should be doing. This is very important to the States themselves.

The President will make that decision on the merits of the gentleman's argument, and I understand those merits. I will not disagree with what he said. I am just suggesting respectfully that this is action for the bill itself and for the rule. But for the extension, this has been a request made by the administration, by the other body, and of course the leadership of this House.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, I am confident that the President of the Senate has communicated with the White House. All through this process they have been very much involved in the process of passage of this legislation. I have not asked his opinion on that part of the legislation. I know that this is a request, and I am trying to fulfill that request.