Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4635, the bill just considered.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Simmons amendment. I thank my friend from Connecticut for bringing this important amendment to the floor.

This amendment will maintain the integrity of the Coast Guard as a distinct entity within the Department of Homeland Security.

Section 888 of the Homeland Security Act states that the Coast Guard shall be maintained intact with all of the service's authorities, functions, and capabilities.

The Coast Guard has submitted a plan for its research, development, test and evaluation activities for fiscal year 2005 which will concentrate on the development of strategies and resources aimed to improve the service's ability to perform its traditional missions.

The Coast Guard's traditional missions include search and rescue, drug and migrant interdiction, marine environmental protection, ice operations and aids to navigation.

It is imperative that we maintain the Coast Guard's ability to perform these important traditional missions in addition to the service's homeland security mission.

I am concerned that the transfer of research and development funds to the Department will be the first step down a slippery slope that will forever change the Coast Guard's abilities to balance its resources and personnel to carry out its many and varied missions.

We must protect the multi-mission nature of the Coast Guard.

We should provide funding for Coast Guard research, development, test and evaluation directly to the service in the same manner that we provide all other Coast Guard funds.

This is what the law demands and this is the right thing to do.

I urge my fellow members to support the Simmons amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the amendments offered by my colleagues from New York.

The amendments that they have offered would significantly increase the likelihood a terrorist incident occurring outside of a major metropolitan area will have disastrous effects.

This funding is not solely intended for security to prevent a terror attack, but also for preparedness, in case an event happens.

Terrorism can happen anywhere. That is why we must be prepared everywhere.

Allocating these funds solely on the risk of terror is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. Large cities and metropolitan areas will be safe and prepared, but nobody else will.

We have heard a parade of members that would benefit from a risk of terrorism only allocation. If this allocation basis is adopted, and a terrorist attacks your community, what will you tell them, I'm sorry we weren't prepared, but it's okay, because a few big cities are?

Providing for a State minimum allocation is the only way to ensure that every community is prepared.

I urge all of my colleagues to think very carefully before supporting these amendments, and to think about what such an allocation would mean if they do not represent a large metropolitan area or have significant critical infrastructure. Most members of this body do not, and therefore most members' districts will not be prepared under this scheme.

The Transportation Committee has put forward a proposal that does not require this false choice, between providing for national preparedness and providing preparedness for a select few.

When this proposal is considered during the normal legislative process, I urge my colleagues to support this alternative, which prepares everyone for terror attacks.

Oppose these amendments that leave most communities unprepared for terror attacks.

Mr. Chairman, I am ashamed of my friend from Ohio. I told him earlier today that he did not even have the courtesy to talk to me about this amendment which affects my State, affects my people. You want to protect American jobs, and you have put 15,000 people out of work since 1980. We had the greatest industry in the State gone to waste because of the environmental community.

I am asking for enough timber left, and 4 percent of the total Tongass is all that is available, so I can retain three sawmills to employ about 160 people total with good-paying jobs. And this is not a subsidized forest any more. We pay for these roads. We paid for the activity in the Tongass when we had the bid. That is part of the bid. But this is an easy, cheap vote for somebody from Ohio, somebody who does not know squat about the people of Alaska, and I am disappointed. You are better than that.

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. Chairman, I will do the best I can. I have been here long enough to know when I am out of line; but when I am out of line, I am right.

In 1980, most of you were not here. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) was here. We made an agreement. We said we could have logging in the Tongass. That was an agreement made by the environmentalists, made by those who proposed it; and we lost, as I said, over the years, 15,000 jobs. Members talk about outsourcing, Members talk about losing American jobs. What we are doing on this floor by the gentleman's amendment is taking the jobs away from the American people that live in this great Nation and this great State.

I am asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. It is ill thought, ill conceived and wrong totally. Where it came from I know. I am ashamed that somebody got in bed with those that advocated over the years of putting us out of business, the people. This is not about big timber. They are all gone. These are local people that need that timber to maintain those jobs, to make sure we have a different economy in southeast Alaska.

So I am asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this ill conceived, ill thought and very rude amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3550) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I recognize this motion to recommit is one I support. It is a motion that will I think make the bill's purposes be specifically spelled out. And I would suggest that what the gentleman, the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) said, this is a working instrument, bipartisan, by all Members of both sides of the aisle who have worked

very long and hard to arrive at a decision and passed a bill which we believe is a very good piece of legislation.

But we requested going to conference. It is because of the differences, as usual, between the Senate and the House, as it should be. It is my hope, with the cooperation we have had in the past, we will be able to talk to the Senate and convince them that we are in the right position at the right time.

I will say, everybody knows where we came from, to begin with, it is a considerable amount of more money than passed the House. The Senate does have more money in the bill, and it is now our job to try to reach a decision to do what is best for this great Nation of ours in our infrastructure.

I have to stress that, and infrastructure is the key to our economy. Infrastructure is what makes all other things work in this legislative body. Without good transportation, we are unable to provide the monies for Medicare, Medicaid, prescription drugs, border patrol, Social Security, all those good things we talked about. The only thing that drives that is infrastructure that makes people and product move. So we believe that we have a good piece of legislation.

On the House side, it passed overwhelmingly, the largest single vote that any Congress has ever voted on a transportation bill. It was done in this House. We had less negative votes than any other time.

And, again, we passed it over to the Senate. They rejected it. We rejected what they sent us, and now it is up to us to ask for this conference. I am hoping that the Senate and House Members will work together, collectively, and we will arrive at a very rapid solution to this very, very important issue to this great Nation.

Again, I want to stress to Members that may be watching in their offices is this is a friendly motion to instruct, one which I support; and if there is a vote, and I expect to ask for a vote, I will ask for a yes vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield what time he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management, a member of the conference.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers at this time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments the gentleman has made, and he knows this has been a joint effort. The gentleman has worked well with us, and I can assure him that we are on the same page; and as we go to conference, there will be some differences of opinion, but I think if we stand shoulder to shoulder, our policy will prevail.

Now our problem is to try to get the money to take and implement that policy, and that is going to be our responsibility, and I think we can do it. I am very positive about it. I always have been, always will be because it is the right thing to do, and we will continue our efforts; and I thank the gentleman for his comments.

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, today I rise to pay tribute to the men and women in blue who have given the ultimate sacrifice. Every year, thousands of law enforcement officers from all corners of our Nation come together to hold a candlelight vigil at the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial at Judiciary Square. Spouses, children and even those who just want to say thank you come together to honor the over 16,000 heroes whose names have been inscribed on that marble wall. These heroes are law enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line of duty.

Today, I pay my respects to these heroes and to share the sorrow as we remember and honor them for their unselfish commitment to protect and serve. We honor their lives and all they have done to make our streets a safer place for us to live.

Last year, 145 law enforcement officers gave their lives in the line of duty. Today, I would like to recognize and honor a fellow Alaskan: Officer John Patrick Watson, who gave his life Christmas Evening, 2003 while responding to a possible domestic dispute call. Officer Watson, an eighteen-year veteran of the force and resident of Kenai, Alaska was shot to death with his own weapon, allegedly by one of the individuals on whose welfare he was checking. Officer Watson is the first member of the Kenai Police Department to lose his life in the line of duty but his loss was not in vain. He will be remembered for his commitment to his job, his friends and most of all his family. He along with the other fallen members of the law enforcement community share a special bond with one another. They will be regarded as heroes, a bond they will share for eternity. It is only fitting that we celebrate their lives not for the way they died, but for the way they lived.

Officer John Patrick Watson went to work on Christmas Day as a hero and that is the way he will always be remembered. I pray for his wife Kathy, his daughter, six stepchildren and his family in Michigan. Officer Watson is a true Alaskan Hero.

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to introduce H. Res. 618, a resolution commemorating the 101st anniversary of Jack London's inspirational novel, The Call of the Wild. Originally published in installments from June 20th to July 18th 1903, The Call of the Wild is considered a uniquely American narrative, recounting the trials and tribulations surrounding the Klondike Gold Rush of the Yukon Territory in Canada, which impacted the District of Alaska and Washington State during the 1890s. This classic of world literature contributed to the spirit of exploration and discovery that swept the United States in the early part of the last century and led many others to explore what is now the great State of Alaska. One of the most widely translated and published works by an American author; The Call of the Wild has not been out-of-print in the past century.

Born John Griffith London in 1876 in San Francisco, California, the author began working during his adolescent years at various labor- intensive jobs, which included pirating for oysters on the San Francisco Bay, and serving on a fish patrol to capture poachers. It was his strong desire to escape the prospect of adult life as a factory worker that motivated him to begin his career as a writer. A restless spirit and strong sense of adventure led Jack to leave his native California in 1897, with his brother-in-law, James Shepard, to join the Klondike Gold Rush. His experiences that winter spent in a cabin by the Klondike river provided much of the rich material for his most well renowned novels, The Call of the Wild and White Fang, both of which became inspirations for full-length feature films. He went on to produce over fifty volumes of work in his lifetime, which included novels, short stories, and political essays. His literary portrayals of adventure and frontier life, unparalleled in their time, helped mark him as a truly great American author and seminal figure in turn-of-the century social history.

The Call of the Wild, which remains London's most celebrated work, tells a story through the eyes of Buck the dog, half St. Bernard, half Scotch Shepard. Captured from his comfortable life on an estate in California's Santa Clara Valley, he is sold to dog traders who ship him north to the Klondike to serve as a sled puller. Surrounded by inexperienced and cruel masters, Buck must learn to survive the realities of the harsh winter. The Call of the Wild is a tale of travel, transformation, and adaptation, filled with Darwinian undertones of survival and written in a naturalistic style that London is so often praised for.

As a young child, my father read this moving novel to me on many occasions. Filled with recollections of adventure and exploration, I too, as a young man left my home in California to explore a world full of budding possibilities. These notions led me to a land less discovered, the Last Frontier, the State of Alaska. What I found when I arrived there was an untold potential for greatness for the land and its people, an inspiring setting for leadership and representation. Had it not been for the spirit of Jack London's experiences that he eloquently shared with the world--and me--in The Call of the Wild, I might never have journeyed to this great state that I have called home for more than 47 years and have had the great honor to represent, here in Washington, for the past 31 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 3550 in the Committee of the Whole, a period of further general debate contemplated in a previous order of the House of March 30, 2004, may be in order before the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, yes, that is correct.

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

I hope everybody that is standing around will listen for a few moments as a matter of courtesy, because I have to refer back to one of the former speakers from New Jersey who said we had plenty of time on this bill, and we should have done better. I can tell my colleagues, we have done everything we could possibly do, because we had to really write three different bills, which is very difficult to do, because the numbers kept changing and kept floating. But every time we had to change, the staffs on both sides, on this side and that side, majority and minority, had to go back and rewrite most of the legislation each time.

So at this time I would like to acknowledge not just the work of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), but those who really did the work: Levon Boyagian, Graham Hill, Jim Tyman, Joyce Rose, Mike Lamm, Sharon Barkeloo, Melissa Theriault, and Ryan Young. He is not my son, either; he is no relation.

Also, Debbie Gephardt, not the daughter of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), either; Patrick Mullane on the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Petri) staff. They were the real behind-the- organization workers.

Also my chief of staff, Lloyd Jones; Liz Megginson; Charlie Ziegler; Mark Zachares; and Fraser Verrusio, Debbie Callis and John Bressler.

I would also like to thank the minority staff. I can tell my colleagues with sincerity that the minority staff, because the majority staff would come to me and say, the minority staff is not working with us; and the minority would say the majority staff is not working with us but, in the long run, we all got together and solved, I think, a lot of very serious, contentious problems and philosophies and where this bill was headed.

I also want to thank David Heymsfeld, Ward McCarrager, Clyde Woodall, Ken House, Katherine Donnelly, and Art Chan. On the staff of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), Jason Tai.

There are many others, and would I like to thank all of the members of this committee that worked with me and have stood by me; and those that object to provisions in this bill, they have my assurance that I am going to try to make sure that we solve those problems in conference. I have been one that does not weaken very easily when it comes to working with the other body. And if we stand shoulder to shoulder, I think we can solve those problems that have been brought to the floor. We hope to do so. I am confident we can.

Again, I am extremely grateful for those who put all the time in, 4 o'clock in the morning, 5 o'clock in the morning, and back here, like today, at 9 o'clock in the morning. This is a large legislative package, and we could not have done it without the hard work and dedication of professional people, I want to stress that, professional people; and for that, I extend my sincerest thanks.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the chairman of the subcommittee, who has done an outstanding job traveling across this country explaining our bill.

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

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

Again, we are about to close this very long 2 days. We will have a series

of three votes: the Bradley amendment vote, the Kennedy amendment vote, the Isakson amendment vote, and motion to recommit, and then final passage. Again, I can suggest to most of the Members of this House that this has been a long, trying time, but one which I take great pride in.

Regardless of what my colleagues read in the two rag sheets in this body, and they are constantly reporting and trying to divide this House, to try to pit one against the other in different fashions, we have overcome that and I think have come out with a very good piece of bipartisan legislation.

Yes, there are some that do not agree with it, and I understand that. But overall, if we believe in the national transportation system, and I want to stress, the national transportation system, H.R. 3550, the $275 billion does not completely do the job, but it is the nearest thing we can do at this time.

I will say right up front, a motion to recommit is very attractive, but it should not be done because it does break the budget against the budget resolution that passed the House; and it does, in fact, send a message to the Senate, but it does not accomplish the goals that I am trying to achieve, and that is to pass legislation so we can make a step forward, a step forward to the progress that is necessary to get our country moving, to keep this country moving, to make sure our people and our products move.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure my colleagues from Hawaii that pertaining to section 1812, I continue to be willing to work with them to find an alternative resolution of the issues addressed in that section.

We worked on legislative language last fall that would have transferred the dry-dock back to the Federal Government and compensated TDX for its costs and that would have ended all lawsuits. I am still interested in this framework for a legislative solution to these debilitating lawsuits.

Once again, I remain committed to working out a mutually acceptable solution to this problem with my friends from Hawaii and others, in conference or elsewhere.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that the House does not have a better transportation bill before it today. As it is currently written, the bill has a number of genuine shortcomings which are inequitable to my home state of Michigan and a large number of other donor states. Let me make it clear that these shortcomings will have to be addressed.

I also want to underscore that this transportation reauthorization is seriously behind schedule. Renewal of the highway bill was supposed to be completed last year. The states need Congress to complete our work and pass a long-term transportation bill in order to plan and implement their road and transit projects. The inability of the House to effectively deal with this legislation is negatively affecting the economy and jobs.

The House is in this unenviable position because the Republican Leadership and the White House cannot agree on the size and shape of the highway bill. The White House has indicated the President may well veto the bill that the Majority has brought to the Floor today. The President's ``my way or the highway'' approach to this bill is the single largest obstacle to providing equity to donor states in this legislation.

But we simply cannot keep putting this off and passing short-term extensions. We have got to break the impasse. Our country's roads and transit are too important to maintain the status quo. It is time to approve a multi-year reauthorization, move it to conference with the Senate, and have all parties sit down and work through the difficult issues that need to be addressed.

Primary among those issues is the need to address donor state equity. By maintaining the current 90.5 percent minimum guaranteed return on Federal highway dollars, this bill does nothing to improve the status of donor states like Michigan. I worked with other concerned Members in each of the past few highway funding reauthorization bills to increase Michigan's rate of return. Along with so many of my colleagues, I have cosponsored legislation in this session of Congress to increase this return once more by requiring a minimum return of 95 percent. The House Leadership has agreed to address this concern when this bill goes to conference.

The bill before the House today simply does not provide an adequate level of funding to meet the needs of our states' transportation infrastructure. The Senate has approved legislation providing $318 billion over 6 years, while we are considering a $275 billion measure. I very much support the Senate-passed funding level, which would provide $1.65 billion more for Michigan. I hope that we can move closer to the Senate-passed funding level in conference.

I will vote for this legislation today to get the bill to conference so that these shortcomings can be negotiated and addressed. Let me be clear: My vote on the final version of this legislation will depend on how these matters are addressed by the conferees.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have spent 2 good days of very legitimate debate. I was hoping we could avoid some of the things being said now. Although it may sound clear and true, I can say we face reality. This bill came out of our committee unanimously with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) supporting it. We want to go forth. The 318 figure coming from the Senate side, very frankly, I do not think is true. What we have to do is try to find the real dollars, and we are going to attempt to do that in conference.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the other body 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Let us move forward. Let us try to legislate. Let us do our job.

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. 3550, 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. 3550.

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

Mr. Chairman, I feel somewhat like the sinner appearing before the bishop when Your Honorable is in the Chair; but with all due respect, I do relish this moment. We are here today to support H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, known as TEA LU.

This bill is a result of a great deal of hard work and cooperation by the Members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on a bipartisan basis.

I want to first thank the ranking minority member of our committee, my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). He has been a real champion of transportation, working with me to craft this legislation.

I also want to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee of Highways, Transit and Pipelines, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). His leadership and dedication contributed greatly to bringing this bill to the floor today.

He has traveled many, many miles to try to bring the information and gather the information from the citizens of this great Nation.

In addition, I appreciate the support and cooperation of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), ranking minority member of the subcommittee. This effort demonstrates that, through bipartisanship, working together in cooperation, we can achieve I believe great things and legislate great things in this body.

I particularly want to thank our Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), for his leadership in moving this important legislation along. He has ensured that this body will be able to work its will and proceed as an independent branch of our government under our Constitution, and I do deeply appreciate his support.

In addition, we could not have brought this bill to the floor today without the support and assistance of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) from the Committee on Ways and Means. Chairman Thomas is proposing some changes to existing law that will provide additional revenues into the Highway Trust Fund. His proposal makes it possible to achieve a better bill, and I appreciate his advice and counsel.

Lastly, I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) of the Committee on the Budget. He and his staff have been invaluable in ensuring that we continue the principles contained in TEA 21 that guarantee that highway trust funds will be spent on transportation, as promised to the American people. We have worked closely together to reach an agreement that meets both our needs at this point in time.

We have worked with other committee chairmen on provisions contained in the bill; and, without their help, we would not have been able to bring this bill to the floor today. We will continue to work with other committees in a cooperative fashion as we proceed to conference.

Mr. Chairman, traffic congestion, poor roads and hazardous highways are not Republican or Democrat problems. These are problems shared by all Americans, from all walks of life or economic conditions and all political parties.

Today, congestion on our highways is greatly reducing the quality of life for American families. Congestion, congestion, congestion causes over $67 billion in lost productivity and wasted fuels, $67 billion lost that produces nothing. It costs the average driver $1,160 a year and more than a week and a half spent stuck in traffic. I want to stress that again. Average driver, $1,160 a year and more than a week and a half spent stuck in traffic.

H.R. 3550 provides a new emphasis and a new program to relieve congestion, maximize roadway capacity and remove bottlenecks. In addition, more than 42,000 Americans are killed and 3.3 million are seriously injured each year on our highways. Nearly a third of the fatal crashes are caused by poor roads and roadside hazards. These fatalities are totally preventable.

H.R. 3550 creates a new core program for highway safety infrastructure improvements, a new high-risk rural road safety program and supports a number of safety programs aimed at human factors that contribute to accidents.

Mr. Chairman, we live in a global economy. Moving freight quickly and on time is absolutely essential to remain competitive and to retaining our

economic well-being. Other countries, such as China, are investing first in their transportation infrastructure because they know that without roads they cannot grow their economies. The United States must be willing to make transportation a top priority if we are to retain our economic leadership.

H.R. 3550 funds five programs designed to improve movement of freight, including funding for border infrastructure, intermodal connectors, projects of regional and national significance and a new corridor infrastructure program.

The bill also provides funding for construction of dedicated truck lanes. This will mean not only faster moving of freight but a vast improvement in safety on increasingly crowded interstates.

Public mass transportation is a key component in our cities. Seniors, the disabled and low-income families rely heavily on public transportation. In addition, without transit our highways would be so congested that we would not be able to move at all.

Therefore, H.R. 3550 continues our commitment to provide for public transportation both to our cities and to many rural areas where the need is great.

America's transportation needs are obvious to anyone who spends time on our roads and highways. We are a Nation stuck in traffic. We based the funding level of H.R. 3550 on the administration's conditions and performance report which set forth the needs of our transportation system.

In addition, we received far more requests from Members for funding of projects than we could possibly accommodate. That proves to me that the needs are real and that they are growing.

Mr. Chairman, this has been never been a want bill. This is a needs bill for this great Nation. So I am disappointed we have had to reduce the funding for many of the very good programs that we proposed in H.R. 3550 as introduced.

Failure to address our transportation needs will leave our country behind in protecting our economy. Mr. Chairman, that is not acceptable to this chairman. It will reduce the quality of life of our citizens if we do not pass this bill.

H.R. 3550 is a bill which embodies our vision for a better transportation legacy for America's future. I urge everyone during this debate and discussion of the bill to be able to listen to the merits of the legislation and support what is right for America.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for the purpose of a colloquy with the chairman.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania very frankly for his hard work on this issue. It is a pleasure to work with him.

I understand the needs these small transit systems face. I certainly support the growth, as I told the gentleman personally, of transit throughout the United States, especially in the thriving smaller communities such as in the gentleman's congressional district.

I want to assure my colleague that, as we go forward with this bill, I welcome his continued assistance on this matter and the gentleman's knowledge. I look forward to working with my colleague on this issue as we go through the conference to finding a reasonable and responsible solution to this problem, and I can assure my colleague that probably will happen.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

(Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

In closing, I would like to thank all the Members who have spoken in favor of this bill. There is no one who spoke against the bill. There will be approximately 11 more amendments offered. I believe this bill is properly structured.

And I have to say this. I again want to stress one thing. I came to this House 31 years ago. I came to this House to work to achieve legislation, and I believe we can only do that by working together. It is something I believe very strongly in. And I know there are those who do not agree with me, who do not want to achieve, but to bicker; and I do not think this is what this House is all about.

So I again congratulate the other side, the minority, at this time for their willingness to work with me and I to work with them to achieve a goal. And I think we have partially reached it in this legislation.

Because of certain media reports about the 375, I have to remind those that might be listening to this or are watching that the 375 that I chose 2\1/2\ years ago with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) was not an artificial number. It was not a ``wanna'' number. This is a number that came from this administration just to maintain and improve a little bit. There was only one way we could have gotten there, and that was by, in fact, increasing user fees. And of course that has run into tremendous opposition from different people, everybody knows who. But I hope they understand what we are really trying to do in this legislation; and what we should have been doing with the 375 is the future of this Nation because at this period of time before elections, we hear a lot of people talking about Social Security, Medicare, education, border patrol, homeland security, prescription drugs; and they are all good and they are all needed. But there is only one way we can have the financial revenue to get those achievements done, and that is to have a good infrastructure system in place for the future. Without a good infrastructure system, we do not have the economic capability of doing those things everybody wants us to do.

This is not a new idea. Eisenhower saw it and built the interstate system 50 years ago and made this the greatest Nation not just for security purposes, but to be able to move goods and products and people to and from and establish industries because of that infrastructure system put in place 50 years ago.

Now we have competition internationally. We have nations that recognize this. We did not win the Cold War because of our military might. In fact, we did not even win the Second World War because of our military might. We won it because we could deliver troops, products, food, and people across this Nation to the manufacturing points. China, as said in my opening statement, now recognizes that. And we hear a lot of China, about outsourcing. We hear a lot about China and their economic growth; but they recognize why we were great, and I stress that word ``were,'' because they are going to build in 15 years the same amount of highways that it took us 60 years to build in the United States to tie their provinces together, like we tied our States together, so there would be no more warlords. They will have a united China with 4.5 billion people to be able to produce and compete with anyone in this world and probably beat them on all forms of products, especially when Russia is right next door with all the natural resources that they use to do that production.

And the foresight, I believe, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and I have had to see that challenge and try to rise to that occasion to make sure this Nation has the ability to compete internationally, that is what this bill is about and what it should be as more.

And that is why in this bill I have a reopener, and I have people objecting to that, because I believe our economy is coming back, but our needs to move people is also increasing at a dramatic

rate, and I want to have my grandkids and my great grandkids and my great, great grandkids to have the advantages and ability to compete globally because of the infrastructure system that we will put in place.

I have told my adversaries that are against my 375 that I will be back. I will continue this fight because I believe in it so strongly for this Nation. I believe this House has a responsibility to leave a proper legacy behind for the future generations of this great Nation. I hope everybody that listens to the debate as far as the amendments go understands that we are going to listen to them. We will vote some down; we will accept them, but when it is all said and done that we step forth with this bill tomorrow I hope in the near hours to start the process to leave a legacy behind for this great Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I submit the following two letters for the Record.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, March 26, 2004.

Hon. Don Young, Chairman,

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Young: I am writing with regard to H.R. 3550,

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

ordered reported by the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure on March 24, 2004. 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.

3550 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.

3550. 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. 3550 or similar

legislation.

I request that you include this letter as part of the

Committee's Report on H.R. 3550 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 yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment under consideration would make improvements to H.R. 3550 as well as to make some technical corrections. More specifically, it would require more oversight of the use of Federal funds for transportation projects.

It allows funds to be used for additional planning activities under a pilot program. It would allow new activities under the Federal lands highway program to improve how projects are developed in conjunction with wildlife along the highways.

It would allow the Secretary to let States assume the responsibility of the Secretary for transportation enhancements, recreational trails and ITS projects.

It would require the Secretary to conduct a rulemaking to ensure that States are repairing or replacing damaged features on the National Highway System with highway features that have been tested, evaluated, and found to be acceptable under certain guidelines.

It makes a technical change to ensure that only new interstate facilities are eligible under the interstate system for construction of toll pilot programs.

It designates new highways for high-priority corridors on the National Highway System. It would require the Secretary to conduct a pavement-marking system evaluation study to improve safety on the highways.

It creates a national clearinghouse for the purpose of assembling and disassembling information relating to improvement of roadway work-zone safety.

It makes procedural improvements to the planning requirements for metropolitan areas in States regarding the Clean Air Act.

It directs the Secretary to create a model statute for the States to use when developing drunk-driving detection, prevention, and enforcement programs.

The budget title sets discretionary spending limits on outlays for the highway and mass transit budget categories and for new budget authority for the mass transit category and continues the budgetary fire walls for highway and transit programs.

It would improve the calculation of revenue-aligned budget authority, or RABA, to provide more accurate information of revenue to the Highway Trust Fund.

Finally, it sets the annual obligation limitations for the highway and transit programs for the fiscal years 2004 to 2009.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified in the form at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

First, Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for this amendment, and more than that for being able to communicate with the ranking member and myself on your wishes in your district, and being so kind to me when I was in your district this last year. I do thank you for that.

I have reviewed this amendment with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and we are willing to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition.

I understand what the gentleman from Arizona is trying to do, and I want to compliment the gentleman. He is one of the few people in this body who did not ask me for any earmarks. I do thank him for that. I understand what he is trying to say.

But I have to remind everybody about earmarks in this legislation. It is, in fact, a request from Members, and it is the one time they might have an opportunity to represent their district. That is very true. I have some Members in this body that get no money out of DOT in their district because they are sparsely populated and all the money goes to the large urban areas. This is one time there is a fairness doctrine. Every nickel that is earmarked in this bill goes to a form of transportation. No dollars go outside that for any other purpose, regardless of what you might read. It goes to a form of transportation.

I know what the gentleman is trying to do. He is right about what the appropriators have done in the past and will probably continue to do. This is an amendment that has good thought but does not have great merit. Because I do think it, in fact, will impede those States that have had projects of national significance or projects of high priority. They will be penalized from getting those projects accomplished.

I thank the gentleman for his presentation. I understand what the gentleman from Arizona is trying to do, but I do believe that the amendment is inappropriate at this time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

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

I will say that to the gentleman I do think the amendment has some merit; but as the gentleman mentioned, now with the shortage of dollars, et cetera, I would suggest that we continue to work with the gentlewoman as we go through this process and see if we cannot reach a solution to it. And I think that can be achieved. But at this time I would oppose the amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed this amendment, and I believe, with consultation, we have agreed to the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will agree with that. I think it should be tightened up. It is something that both the author and, of course, the gentleman from California have spoken on; and we will continue working with you to see if we cannot make it adaptable to everybody.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) my support for this route. I have had the privilege of speaking to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John), everybody involved in this area; and my attention as time goes by as we go to the conference, this will be one of the routes that is considered as a high priority, because it is badly needed, not only for the State of Louisiana, but for the other States in proximity too.

I would like to say that we had enough money to do everything, but I am not going to say we do. But this is one of the areas that I am very strongly in support of, and I will do everything I can to see that we achieve those goals.

Mr. Chairman, I deeply respect my good friend that has offered this amendment, but I have a couple questions.

One, I have had the privilege of visiting a private company; it has developed a truck stop process whereby the trucks do have the same thing my colleague wants. What I understand his amendment does is he wants to raise the weight of the truck 400 pounds of added equipment to the truck so they do not have to stop at a truck stop. Is that correct?

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Chairman, well, I am just concerned about that because this company called Idle Air, it has done an outstanding job, and they are trying to do the job right without any government money or support. And they are doing exactly what my colleague wants to do, but the truck does have to go and they have their waiting time that they have to rest, refuel their trucks, et cetera.

And it seems to me if we add this extra 400 pounds for additional equipment, it would be detrimental to that individual company. That concerns me somewhat. I am sort of taking sides on that issue is what I am saying. With your proposal, would that hurt the company?

Mr. Chairman, we do have some problems with weight limitation on these trucks. Four hundred pounds does not sound like much; but if you add all the trucks up, we do not know the ramifications of the weight factor on the roads. And I really think the gentleman is on the right track, but I think we have to consider what that would do if, in fact, we raise that limitation to 400 pounds, do we raise the limitation on other aspects of the trucks such as a new engine which adds 3,000 pounds to the truck. We have not done that yet.

So I think we need to look at the total wear and tear on the road.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

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

I am going to ask for a voice vote, and I really am not in opposition to it; but I do not have anybody else speaking on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we have not seen the language yet as far as the amendment. It is my indication I do not think we are going to object, but I would like to be able to read the language first. I do not think we have any objections to it.

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

I will say, though, I am usually in favor of what occurs by State action, but what this amendment does, it allows the State of New Jersey to limit large trucks and twin-trailer combination trucks to the interstate system, not intrastate, the New Jersey Turnpike and the Atlantic City Expressway, except when making local deliveries. It is amazing when you need your donors you allow a twin-trailer truck to arrive at the door but nobody else.

In 1999, the New Jersey DOT actually allowed New Jersey to ban, that is DOT of New Jersey, large trucks from certain roads. However, that was challenged in court by the trucking industry; and if I am correct, just recently, last week of this year, the U.S. District Court from New Jersey ruled that the New Jersey truck highway access regulatory system discriminated against interstate commerce and violated the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

This amendment would reverse that decision; and, again, I would suggest that New Jersey use all the recourse through the law. Because to take now a case that has been won by one side of the argument in the court and now us, as a Congress, to reverse that----

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, but the industry or the plaintiff that filed the suit is now being precluded from going forth. If my colleague wants to do that, have the court or New Jersey file an injunction against the court's decision. Do not ask us to undo what a court has ruled.

Reclaiming my time, they can continue their suit, but they are not the ones now that have to pursue the suit. They are the ones that won the case, and they can drive their trucks on interstate commerce because of the clause in the interstate commerce clause under the Constitution. What the gentleman is asking us to do in the Congress is to undo what the court has ruled.

I am not a lawyer. Thank God for that. We have got enough of those around here. But I am a little concerned that what we are doing here is really not fair to the persons that filed the suit to begin with. We are saying you cannot do it. You can go back to court. As we go back to court, well, you cannot use the truck. Under the interstate clause, that is against the Constitution, as the court has ruled.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) who wishes to speak on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to compliment

the gentleman and the gentleman from Oregon for their presentations. As I told the gentleman from New Jersey, I did support the concept of this amendment.

I also agree with my ranking member that, as we go through it, we will do it the right way and do it correctly so we can actually solve a serious problem. His story is a very telling story.

So with that, I guess we will have a voice vote; is that correct?

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we are going to support the amendment as intended. However, there is a slight, as I think the gentleman from Minnesota mentioned, drafting error, the section that applies to both the current new starts and the new small starts process. We will take the amendment at this time with the gentleman's understanding we want to correct the language in conference so that the exemption applies only to the new small starts process.

Does the gentleman understand that?

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Chairman, if he has done that, I apologize. I was talking to my staff and they did not advise me of that. If that has already been done, we do not have to worry about that.

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

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

Although it is well merited, the Federal Public Transportation program does not provide programs for airport-based services. In addition, we understand that this amendment, according to our figures, adds $300 million to the cost of the bill, and that concerns me a great deal.

And, lastly, may I suggest respectfully, as important as natural gas is, we have some real problems getting natural gas to the United States, and we had better start looking at that problem very quickly; and under the energy bill we can do that. We have not passed the energy bill, but it is crucially important for this Nation to have a new supply of natural gas.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and especially thank the gentleman for his perseverance and the work he has done, as well as the ranking member for accepting the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think what I have said before is it is a way to have a little logic in this body. I do compliment the gentleman for bringing this amendment to the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced the Save the Summers Act of 2004, which will temporarily increase the cap on the number of skilled overseas workers allowed into the United States. For the first time and without advance warning, the Department of Homeland Security announced that the cap of 66,000 H-2B visas had been reached just six months into the current year--leaving summer employers stranded. This one-year emergency fix will increase the number of H-2B visas by 40,000 for fiscal year 2004 only. This bill will also require that the Department of Homeland Security provide Congress with quarterly reports on the number of H-2B visas issued and an annual report providing a statistical analysis of the program.

The H-2B visa program allows foreign workers to come to the U.S. for short periods of time (up to 10 months) to fill seasonal or temporary jobs. The fishing industry in Alaska, tourist and resort industry along much of the East Coast, the Upper Midwest, and the Rockies, swimming pool management companies across America, catfish, timber and sugar industries in Louisiana, crab processors in North Carolina, and the shrimp industry in Texas are just a few that depend on the H2-B program to bring in needed workers.

Fishing in Alaska supports nearly 20,000 jobs, and is estimated to be a billion dollar-a-year industry with nearly 700 million dollars-a-

year in exports. The processors and vessel owners rely on these temporary workers who are Japanese technicians specifically trained to the standards required for Alaska Ikuro products to be sold in the Japanese market. Their skills are not otherwise available in the Alaska or U.S. labor pool and they are not taking work from U.S. workers. My state relies on these workers and I believe the H-2B visa program is vital to the survival and economic growth of the fishing industry in Alaska. The potential for lost revenue in Alaska is extremely high if the industry does not have these skilled technicians to aid with the processing.

This is a serious matter that requires immediate legislative action. I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives for their support and urge them to swiftly pass this emergency legislation, which directly affects the economy in many of our districts.