Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska

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

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

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

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

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