Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, from April 30-May 2, 2005 more than 1200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, D.C. to take part in the national finals of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution, the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education.

I am proud to announce that the class from West Anchorage High School will represent the state of Alaska in this prestigious national event. These outstanding students, through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, won their statewide competition and earned the chance to come to our nation's capitol and compete at the national level.

While in Washington, the students will participate in a three-day academic competition that simulates a congressional hearing in which they ``testify'' before a panel of judges. Students demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles and have opportunities to evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. It is important to note that the Educational Testing Service (ETS) characterizes the We the People program as a ``great instructional success.'' Independent studies by ETS have revealed that We the People students ``significantly outperformed comparison students on every topic of the tests taken.''

Congratulations to Elizabeth DeYoung, Monique Eniero, Roberta Gordaoff, Danielle Johnson, Jayme Johnson, Vassar Louis-Bradford, Gareth Olds, Michael Pascual, Courtney Prokosch, Alexander Richert, Gerriane Villanueva, Jeffery Wittsey and their teacher Pamela Orme.

I wish these students the best of luck at the We the People national finals and applaud their outstanding achievement.

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), as originally enacted, limited Alaska Native Regional Corporations from enrolling Natives born after December 18, 1971, as shareholders in their respective corporations. Subsequent amendments to ANCSA have allowed Regional Corporations to include Natives born after December 18, 1971 (often referred to as ``New Natives'' or ``Shareholder Descendents''), if existing shareholders of the Corporation adopt a resolution at an annual meeting. Thus far, very few Native Corporations have adopted resolutions to include Shareholder Descendents, in part because the standard for adopting a resolution is too high.

Existing law provides that a resolution is considered approved by the shareholders of a Native Corporation if it receives an affirmative vote from a ``majority of the total voting power of the corporation''. At any given annual meeting; however, the total voting power of the corporation is not exercised.

Accordingly, it is possible that eighty-five to ninety percent of the voting proxies at an annual meeting would be required to vote in favor of a Shareholder Descendents resolution. This is an extremely difficult threshold to meet. Accordingly, the attached proposed amendment would allow a Shareholder Descendents resolution to be approved by a majority of the shares present or represented by proxy at an annual meeting. If a change is not made to the existing voting standard for adoption of a Shareholder Descendents resolution, the promises of ANCSA are potentially left unfulfilled, at present, two generations of Shareholder Descendents.

Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) and the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) for their fine work on a good piece of legislation that starts our process in becoming independent, providing energy policy, which I have heard none from the other side. Remarkably, when I hear people talking about new innovative ideas, they do not tell me what ``new'' is.

We are fossil-fuel oriented, and I will admit to that. And we are also dependent, and we have to admit to that. And we are talking about an area that is not pristine, an area, in fact, that should be developed that is 74 miles from the pipeline, an area that we have developed already in Prudhoe Bay, and we can see the great damage that is done up there. The caribou are using the pipeline to rub their backs on. The caribou are calving around the wells. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has never been there; so he would not know. And we have polar bears now that are using the line for a transportation corridor.

So, Madam Chairman, those who would support the Markey amendment are really supporting terrorism because you do not want to develop the domestic fuel supply in this country, and we can. We should be doing this right now. And I hear people tell me it will only affect us 10 years from now. If you had done it when I asked you to do it 20 years ago, we could have solved that problem.

The thing that sort of strikes me the most is I hear people talk about special interests. In fact, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) mentioned it today about special interests, serving up special interests. But I would like to just read a little short letter that I happened to pick up off a Web site. It says: ``Dear friend, in a few short hours the Republican energy bill will be brought up for debate and a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives. I need your immediate help to ensure that this terrible bill never becomes law.

``Last week in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I offered a series of amendments to increase the average fuel efficiency'' and it was turned down by the Republicans.

``I then offered an amendment in the Committee on Resources to strip a provision from the bill that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling.'' The Republicans again voted against it.

``If we allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge we will forever ruin this unique wilderness and allow the oil industry to target all 450 National Wildlife Refuges . . .

``For the last 5 years, I have led the battle in the House to stop the Republicans in the Congress from selling off one of our greatest natural resources to the powerful special interests. Help me continue to fight to expose to the American people the dangers of this extreme and ineffective action by making a contribution today.''

Just, by the way, dial in to www.edmarkey.org/contribute. That is a special interest.

``Help me to continue to fight for sensible, clean and independent energy future and shine a light on the Republican Party backroom attempts to cater to special interests by making an immediate contribution. As Justice Louis Brandeis used to say, `Sunshine is the best disinfectant.' ''

This is a blatant use of an issue to raise money, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. To raise money on an issue that has nothing to do with energy, energy that this country needs. We are no longer the only buyers on the block in this world with China and India in the field. And if we do not wake up, we will have a collapse in our economy. We must develop not only ANWR but other sources of fossil fuels in this country as well as nuclear and as well as hydro and as well as wind and all those other forms of energy and quit talking about pipe dreams, because if we do not, there will not be the jobs for the future generations and this country cannot lead this world. And to have someone stand on this floor and offer an amendment that will take out the only provisional production is against America, against this great Nation, and, in fact, would do the wrong thing for this Nation.

So I ask Members to vote ``no'' on the Markey amendment. Keep this good bill intact. Let us produce energy for this Nation. Let us provide for future generations.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This is a bipartisan amendment, submitted by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and me, and I urge the passage of the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the goals of the gentleman from Texas, and I look forward to working with the gentleman's entire delegation to meet these goals in conference.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the gentleman's State will get any less money under what we propose. It will be at 92.6, and the problem with this amendment is that it is the Flake amendment and that is the number one problem. I will tell you very frankly, after stressing that we worked very closely with the leadership, with everybody trying to reach a solution with the amount of dollars we have and still in fact take care of those Members that believe in fact they should have a say about some monies that go into their State and where it goes. The idea that collectively you will sit down with your fellow Members and you will arrive at a decision and you have got two senators over there, you can forget it because that is not going to happen. And this is the one time Members themselves have an opportunity to make a decision for the State in their district.

California, in which I believe has 52 Congressman now, I have some areas that have never got a nickel of Federal monies because of Caltrain who spends it all in the larger populated areas. That is the unfortunate fact of life. Because the Department of Transportation is not always right on the transportation needs for individual districts, and this is the House of the people. And if I thought for one moment that any of these dollars were spent for anything other than transportation, I would be frankly against it. But every dollar being spent is for transportation. And this is the one time every 6 years that there is an opportunity to, in fact, advance for each of the Members' district, and if you do not choose to do that, that is your prerogative. But to have other Members to be deprived of that opportunity, I think, is inappropriate.

The gentleman and I have discussed this amendment for quite a while, and I can just about assure him I have committed to the donor States that we would be able to, in fact, reach that 92.6, and it will be in the final version of the bill when it goes to the President's desk.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, in all due respects to my good colleague from Arizona, I would appreciate it if he would withdraw the amendment. We know what he is trying to do, and I have told the leadership we are going to get to where he

wants to go. If my colleague insists on a vote, I will reluctantly have to vigorously oppose it.

So I would like to make a suggestion. Discretion is the better part of valor.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 3 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 144, the first amendment printed in House Report 109-15 be considered to have been adopted with the modifications I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 3 in the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to House Resolution 144, the final period of general debate may be in order before the disposition of amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I further yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the regional transit authorities are important to transportation in rural areas. I would be happy to discuss this matter further with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) and the gentleman to determine whether we can help with the problems in South Carolina.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

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

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

I echo the words of my good friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and, of course, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member.

I would also like to not only thank my staff but everybody who has dealt with me for the past 4 years on this legislation. This is a very frustrating position to be in when the cash flow is not really what we wanted it to be and yet trying to achieve what is necessary for this country, and that is a good infrastructure system.

I am convinced that we will be revisiting this issue when this bill is on the President's desk in the years coming because we have a real challenge in this great Nation of ours. We have heard it time and again about how people are delayed and how product is delayed and how our bridges are crumbling, our roads are crumbling. These are not myths. These are actual facts. It was testified before us that we actually need probably $500 billion to make sure this country keeps moving, to be competitive with that competitive China.

So this is just a small step forward, and I will agree with my friend from Oregon; I do believe this will be the premier domestic legislation that we will pass that will affect more lives immediately than any other piece of legislation we will have before this body in the next 14 months.

I am proud of the fact that we have been able to do this in a bipartisan fashion. I am proud of the fact that we have been able to, in fact, craft this bill, and there has been lots of cooks in this kitchen, but we have managed to bring everybody together, and I think come out with a very, not think, I know, a very good product in TEA-LU.

Now, we are going to go to the Senate after I hope everybody votes for this legislation. We will go to the Senate. God willing, they will move something, and we will have this bill done before the first of June.

And for that I thank each Member of this House, for participating in the process and showing the public how this House can work together to produce a product for the benefit of this Nation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I insert into the Record an exchange of letters between myself and Chairman Pombo regarding H.R. 3.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Resources,

Washington, DC, March 9, 2005.

Hon. Don Young, Chairman,

Committee on Transportation, and Infrastructure, Rayburn HOB

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I have reviewed the text of H.R. 3, the

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, as ordered

reported from the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure on March 2, 2005. I believe that the Committee

on Resources has a substantial jurisdictional interest in

many provisions of this important legislation including

streamlining of procedures under the National Environmental

Policy Act and resolving confusion on highway construction

and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Further, this Committee maintains jurisdictional interests

in provisions affecting recreational trails, highways on

federal public lands (including national parks, Indian lands

and public domain forest lands), the National Scenic Byways

Program, projects to benefit wildlife, highway safety as it

applies to Indian country.

Recognizing that this historic bill is scheduled to be

considered by the House of Representatives this week, and

noting the strong spirit of cooperation and coordination your

staff has shown mine in the development of this bill, I will

forego seeking a sequential referral of H.R. 3 to the

Committee on Resources. Waiving the Committee on Resources'

right to a referral in this case does not waive the

Committee's jurisdiction over any provision in H.R. 3 or

similar provisions in other bills. In addition, I ask that

you support my request to have the Committee on Resources

represented on the conference on this bill, if a conference

is necessary. Finally, I ask that you include this letter in

the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill.

Following your mark-up of H.R. 3, I want to acknowledge

your efforts on the bill's environmental provisions, many of

which touch upon Committee on Resources jurisdiction. I

commend your efforts to streamline the environmental review

process under the National Environmental Protection Act as

well as Section 4(f) procedures. However, I do have serious

concerns about the provision dealing with the pilot program

for mass transit in National Parks. This provision address

issues that lie squarely within the jurisdiction of the

Committee on Resources and should be addressed in that

context. Moreover, the bill passed last year by the Senate,

S. 1075, contained a number of troubling provisions that I

feel should not be included in any version of transportation

legislation. These provisions include language relating to

the Endangered Species Act and programs to address invasive

species. Thank you for not including these provisions in your

bill.

I appreciate your leadership and cooperation on this bill

and I look forward to working with you to see that H.R. 3 is

enacted into law soon.

Sincerely,

Richard W. Pombo,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. I want to remind my fellow colleagues that this is a very well-crafted, bipartisan effort and this would disrupt what I would say is a great chariot that is going to go off on to the horizon and become law.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. Speaker, 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 in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 3, 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. 3.

Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, today I rise once again in support of the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users, also known as

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the subcommittee chairman, who has done an outstanding job. As I mentioned in my opening statement, he has been the real workhorse on this bill.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota. He has been a real ally in this legislation, and he knows how well we work together and how important to this Nation it is to pass this bill. This is a team effort within a committee that has been very, very bipartisan over the period of time that I have served on it, for the last, actually, 12 years, and even before that. This committee has a record of that, and he has continued that. I think it is crucially important for those watching this on television to know that there are committees that do work hand- in-hand together for the betterment of this Nation, and for that, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to allow the Committee on Ways and Means to use their allotted time at this point.

I also ask unanimous consent that I yield my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) to control until I return. I have to go to another meeting.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert into the Record an exchange of letters between myself and Chairman Barton regarding H.R. 3.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, March 3, 2005.

Hon. Don Young,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Young: I am writing with regard to H.R. 3,

the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, which was

ordered reported by the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure on March 2, 2005. As you know, the Energy and

Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over matters involving

air quality planning and the air quality impact of

transportation projects, the Congestion Mitigation Air

Quality Program, provisions involving energy production,

supply and storage and other matters contained within H.R. 3

as reported.

I recognize your desire to bring this legislation before

the House in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, I will not

exercise my Committee's right to a referral. By agreeing to

waive its consideration of the bill, however, the Energy and

Commerce Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R.

3. In addition, the Energy and Commerce Committee reserves

its right to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill

that are within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate

conference that may be convened on this legislation. I ask

for your commitment to support any request by the Energy and

Commerce Committee for conferees on H.R. 3 or similar

legislation.

I request that you include this letter as part of the

Committee's Report on H.R. 3 and in the Record during

consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank

you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

Joe Barton,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for introducing this amendment. I gladly accept the amendment. I am a little concerned, though, about having this bypass named after Amo Houghton. As such a gentleman and one so civil and always so friendly, I do not like to see a bypass get congested because they will start saying that Amo Houghton Bypass is all congested and does not work any more. So I hope it is big enough and new enough so that traffic will always flow through it.

It is an honor to name this after him, and I repeat all the words that all the Members have said about Amo.

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly but strongly rise in opposition to this amendment. I have to tell Members that the people have contacted me, every State department of transportation because it does not give them flexibility. I thought that is what the gentleman was trying to do. They say it does not do that.

We have American Road Builders, Transportation Construction Coalition, State highway and transportation officials, and Public Transportation Association all opposing the amendment. That tells me something.

I am one that happens to believe in toll roads, contrary to my good friend, but this amendment takes away States rights to expand, including Texas. Last year our majority leader was supportive of the amendment, and now he informs me that he opposes the amendment because the State department of transportation says it will hamstring what they have been able to do.

I would love to work with the gentleman to try to figure this out. I think we are on the right track as far as tolls, but this amendment restricts instead of giving flexibility, and in doing so, takes away States' ability to leave in the tolling concept and maintain.

That is one of our biggest problems, we have not in fact put the money in maintenance. If we were to put a toll road in under this provision, and under his provision they take the tolling out when the road is paid for, who do Members think is going to pay for the toll road later on down the line? They will be back to Congress saying we need the money to maintain the road paid for by a toll.

My argument is there is no such thing as a free road. The roads have to be paid for after they are paid for to maintain them so they can be used. So, again, I respect the gentleman's work and his belief and effort, but to have this amendment take away the flexibility and have it opposed by every VDOT, we know something is wrong with the amendment as drafted. Again, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I wish the gentleman would continue to work with us to work to solve this problem.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record an exchange of letters regarding myself and the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) regarding H.R. 3.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure may file a supplemental report on the bill, H.R. 3, to authorize funds for federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, at any time before midnight, March 8, 2005.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday, February 21, 2005, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 66, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, March 2, 2005.