Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

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

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

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

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. 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.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. 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.