Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I cannot specifically answer the gentleman's question at this time. It is my intent to make sure the vessels, whatever vessels operate in these waters, will be under Coast Guard jurisdiction, and I think that is what the intent of this is. It is my intent, personally, as chairman. The gentleman brings up a point about a Customs ruling that can be changed. I do not intend to do anything. As my colleague knows, I support the Jones Act equally as he does, and we will be reviewing this, and I am willing to work with the gentleman as this legislation goes forward to see if we cannot make sure that his and my ideas are implemented because I am not going to get involved right now with the trips to nowhere because I do not know the effect of this legislation on those activities at this time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman is referring to page 35, the Bluefin and the M/V Coastal Merchant, I do believe this applies as long as it is retroactive. We do not go back and disown them. We have to probably allow them to continue to operate as American-flagged vessels, these two vessels. There are only two vessels mentioned in the bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I gladly will accept a colloquy with the good gentleman.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I can assure the gentleman that it is not my intent to do so at this time. That is why we will have the committee to review it, but if these vessels were actually authorized and they were done under a law of 1976 I believe it is, then we cannot make it say, no, they are no longer eligible.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, my concern is that we were going to have another colloquy on something else that is very dear to your heart.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. That is where the museum will be?

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2443, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2003. The bill is a result of a bipartisan effort, and it deserves the support of all the Members. I especially again want to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and the full and subcommittee ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), for their help and cooperation in developing this bill. I want to stress that, again, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has mentioned, it has been a long time since this bill has become a law, and it is time that the other body acts as we pass it today. I am pleased we are taking the action today to authorize funding for the most important programs of the United States Coast Guard and Federal Maritime Commission. In addition to authorizing the fiscal year of 2004 FMC budget at the level requested by the administration, this bill authorizes the fiscal year 2004 Coast Guard budget at the level requested by the President, plus an additional $460 million. Of this amount, $70 million is authorized for the Coast Guard domestic port security activities, $80 million is to equip four C-130J aircraft for Coast Guard missions, and $202 million is for the Coast Guard's Deepwater capital equipment modernization project. We have also provided $39 million for an armed Coast Guard helicopter squadron, $50 million for Coast Guard foreign port security activities, and $19 million for the alteration of bridges which obstruct navigation. H.R. 2443 will result in improved operation of the Coast Guard and the Federal Maritime Commission and safer, more efficient maritime transportation. However, nearly one-third of our exclusive economic zone lies off the shores of Alaska. These waters include the Nation's largest fishery, and sufficient cruise ship and oil tanker traffic. Therefore, I am concerned about the ability of the Coast Guard to carry out its traditional search and rescue, fisheries law enforcement, and vessel inspection missions. There are concerns that some of these missions may be suffering as a result of the new emphasis on homeland security. I remain optimistic that this legislation will provide the Coast Guard with the resources and legal authorities necessary to get the service back to an acceptable state of mission balance. Mr. Chairman, all of us recognize the exceptional work performed by the Coast Guard, often under dangerous circumstances. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill which authorizes sufficient resources for the Coast Guard to carry out its many missions and make necessary improvements of laws governing maritime transportation. Mr. Chairman, I again speak about the role of the Coast Guard in the great State of Alaska. We have more coastline than all the United States combined and more Coast Guard activities, not only in the fisheries, but again in the oil tanker business, and in the interception of all types of foreign vessels that occur. I can only compliment my Coast Guard contingency in Alaska for the work they do in adverse conditions, flying in weather that you cannot believe, rescuing people, fishermen, and, yes, even some tourists, recovering them with helicopters and with ships themselves. They have done yeoman's duty day after day in very adverse conditions. I will again stress, as one of the authors of Homeland Security, and I expressed at that time the Coast Guard be put at the top of the list in homeland security and they were, not at the bottom, which they were under the original proposal. But I am still very concerned. There is a possibility that their mission, which is actually navigation, safety, interdiction of drugs, of doing duties which this Congress made them responsible for, now there is sort of an emphasis on security purposes and that alone. We must protect and make sure that does not occur, that they have their mission. In fact, I will at the appropriate time, not in this legislation but during the coming year, make a proposal that we take Coast Guard out of Homeland Security, put it back where it belongs and make sure it can do the missions that we have charged them with. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to understand the importance of this legislation. We will have some amendments offered. We hope to work most of them out before they are offered. We will debate those, and we will finally pass a very good piece of legislation for the United States Coast Guard.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Is this museum going to be in the gentleman's district?

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, the legislation I am introducing today calls for the federal government to buy 349 acres of recreational land from the City of Craig, Alaska. The land includes a trail leading to Mount Sunnahae, its trailhead, a parking area, and mountaintop property. The legislation requires an appraisal before purchase. The bill also allows for a $250,000 appropriation to the U.S. Forest Service for trail maintenance and property rehabilitation. I am introducing the bill at the request of Prince of Wales Island residents. The City of Craig is the economic center of Prince of Wales Island--which is the third largest island in the country. The town contains the major retail shopping and service outlets on the island. Craig also has the most active and largest commercial fishing harbor and fleet on the island. But the local economy, like many other parts of South East Alaska, has suffered from a downturn in the timber industry. In the early 1980's, the city and Prince of Wales Island were the center of a solid timber economy that provided thousands of direct and indirect jobs to the Island. Much of that is now gone as a result of terrible Federal forest management policies. According to the Alaska Department of Labor, unemployment rates in Craig regularly exceed 20 percent. This is more than twice the national average. This bill will help community expansion and development as well as facilitate Forest Service land management. One of the Forest Service's main administrative facilities, the Craig Ranger District Station, is located in Craig. The Craig Ranger has management authority over approximately one million acres on Prince of Wales Island. Right now, there is not any Forest Service land near the Ranger Station. In an unusual situation for Alaska, the Ranger Station is an in-holding among private, state, and City owned land. So when visitors come to the Craig Ranger Station to orient themselves to the Forest, there is no onsite recreation. However, the city of Craig owns almost 350 acres of prime recreational land including a dedicated trail in the immediate vicinity from the Ranger Station. The Forest Service should own this land so that it can integrate the parcel into its land management plans. The property to be acquired by the city of Craig is a cannery site dating from the early 1900's which has not been used since the early 1980's. It is prime land for the city to redevelop in order to provide economic stimulus in Craig. The parcel could be used by Craig to develop a good port and harbor and to provide first class land for retail merchants and other community services. The Federal Government will receive equal value in land from the city. The passage of this Act is good for the public and for the residents of Craig.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, because the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) brought up the name of Alaska, I wish he understood the reasons this is in there. The gentleman talks about jobs. He may not have been to Alaska, but Alaska is in a unique position for refueling. That is something that is very important to my airport. Already, the airlines the gentleman is talking about have gone to Vancouver and solicited bids to land in Vancouver, break down their cargo and ship it to the United States. We are part of the United States. The difference between survival of the airport in Alaska, in Anchorage, is this part of this amendment. If it was not adopted, we would lose more than 400 jobs, 400 American jobs. And yes, I can say it is not point to point. These planes will come in, the cargo will be broken down and the planes will be refueled and sent back. The shipment will then be taken by Northwest and other airlines to other parts of the United States. It will create jobs, it will not lose jobs in Alaska. The gentleman talks about foreign. If the gentleman wants them to go to Canada, that is what will happen if Members vote against this bill. My airport will not survive. This is one of the biggest money makers for my airport, and to have someone say this is going to give jobs to foreigners is nonsense. We are different. We are closer to the Orient. We are not New York or New Jersey, which is about the size, by the way, of Kodiak Island. Our survival is the Orient market. That is what we are working on. This is what this bill does. By the way, this is not my amendment. I am defending it because my senior Senator insisted upon it in the conference. We are a conference, and this is what this product is all about. Some may not agree with it, but I am saying it is about the survival of my airport. Just keep in mind, I hear about this, I am concerned about some of the misinformation coming from certain groups about the damage this will do to airlines in this Nation. It will not do so. It will benefit labor. It will benefit the workers in Alaska, and it will benefit my State of Alaska. That is what I am elected for.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for carrying this load. I had to come to this floor because there has been a lot of misunderstanding about this legislation. All the way through this legislation the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and his staffer, Stacy, were involved in this legislation as it passed from the committee and to this House floor. I was charged as chairman of the committee to meet with the Senate, and it is a two-way street, and the Senate and the House did meet. By the way, in this bill, for the other side, the Democrat side, the provision included a special rule to maintain the minimum AIP entitlement at small airports that had lost passengers. That was the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. McGovern) piece of legislation. It included a sense of Congress on fifth freedom and seventh freedom flights. That was the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). Increase the Metropolitan Planning Organization, MPO, participation in airport planning process; that was the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). A requirement to provide additional information to families affected by aircraft accidents, that was from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner). Restrictions on flights to Teterboro Airport, that was the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman). Flight attendant certification; deadline of issuance of stage 4 noise reduction rule; curriculum standards for maintenance technicians; provision on foreign repair station security. All of these came from the other side, and they are in the bill. The conference did meet at the request of the Senate side and, at that time, the Democrats offered an amendment to prohibit the FAA from contracting out any more air traffic control towers and it lost. And it lost. And I have to remind everybody in our bill I protected 95 percent of the control towers. Sixty-nine could have been contracted out; sixty-nine. Under of the Clinton administration 194 were contracted out. And no one said a word, privatized and no one said a word. I protected 95 percent of it. But because of the misinformation, the cry of anguish, now we went back to the old law, existing law, the way it existed for the last 10 years. And that is the law we had that was stripped out of this provision. And, very frankly, I was disappointed that there was nobody signing the conference report from the other side. We tried to finalize it before it expired, this act itself, and now we are on the floor today. And I ask my colleagues, the good in this bill far outweighs what is said bad about it. It allows our airports to function. It improves our airports, and it improves safety all the way through this legislation. I know there has been a lot of disinformation, and, unfortunately, I cannot control everything that happens in this House. I wish I could. I would like to be given about 20 minutes as a dictator, I would straighten everything out. But that will not happen. This is a democracy. But this, overall, is a good piece of legislation. Yes, I even arrived at a solution with the delegation from D.C. and Virginia on the slots, an agreement we made. So there are not that many slots requested from the Senate. And I prevailed on the House side. So I hope with the information that is given us in the debate on the rule, and the debate itself, you understand that this bill is, overall, a good piece of legislation with the bodies on both sides of the aisle having to work together to arrive at a solution. Now, we can demagog this more and more; we can rattle on about it more and more. But in reality, the legislation before you today should become law, and I hope it will be passed on.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman for the work he has done on this legislation and the abuse he has taken over the last month and a half. He has stood up better than most people. I want to thank the staff, especially, for the work they have done over this period of time. I also want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). He is probably the most knowledgeable person in this House about aviation and has worked on it longer than anybody else, understands the problems and the needs. I would also like to say that I do appreciate the time that he has spent with me and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) on writing, I think, a very good piece of legislation. I will say this: I learned one thing. I will never let a cow out in the pasture without a halter again. This thing sort of got away from me a little bit, but it is still a good bill. It is a bill that should be done; it should be passed. The conference report is very, very, very vital. It does reauthorize the Federal aviation part for 4 years. I understand the part that has been the most controversial, which is the air traffic control privatization. I will say that when we did pass this in the House, we did not allow any of that to occur. I was in a position that I had to recognize a result instead of just a philosophy and a position that had to be achieved, and that was to try to compensate for interests outside of even the conference. And that was to try, and I thought we had done a good job of protecting, 95 percent of the control towers. That is what we do in the bill. But I had to agree to, and I will not apologize for it, to 69 and, yes, I will say, I took mine out; it was originally 71. But that is the process of the conference. But this bill does a lot of the other things besides that. That is what the most emphasis is upon. It does fund the small community air service program, the essential air service programs. It provides an increased airport improvement grant funding for the improvement of our airports. There are streamlining airport project reviews that are very important to get our airports built. Increases the number of slots at Reagan National Airport, with which some may not agree, but it was not the abundance of slots that there were on another bill. We kept the slots to a very minimum. It provides flight crew training and certification. Very frankly, as my colleagues know, this industry has taken a tremendous beating. We need this legislation to pass. We need it to become law. We need to get on with the idea of making sure our airports are safe under this legislation, and that we have the ability to move passengers safely and on time, and that we are not delayed by, I think, inactivity by another agency which sometimes does not do the job they should, and people are frustrated. I have talked to thousands of people today that are not afraid to fly; they are just afraid of the harassment of going to the airport. So I think we must address that. Overall, again, this, I believe, is a tremendous piece of legislation. It has some flaws, but when we work with two bodies and there are interests from the other side, we have to give some, we take some, and we end up with a result. I believe the result is a good piece of legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. 3087.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chairman of the committee and rise in opposition. I do this somewhat reluctantly because the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has talked to me about this issue over some time. But to have a cliche, I do not think this amendment does anything right now but muddy the waters, and this is a very clean bill, and I would suggest respectfully that although his endeavors have great merit, that to put it on this bill, at this time, would be a detriment to the bill itself. We have had most, I would say all of the harbors speak out very strongly about this. As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) said, if this was to be left in the bill or be adopted in this committee, then I think there would be a great opposition to the legislation because of OMB. And I would prefer that not to happen. I would prefer this to be a clean bill. I will work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) to try to solve this problem because I happen to agree that there ought to be some revenues generated from all the cargo containers that come into our ports, but I do not believe this is the appropriate vehicle to do so.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I will compliment the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for his hard work and that of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) on this legislation. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation, and I am very pleased today that we are considering it because this has been delayed for numerous years. I also would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) for their good work and their understanding, because that is one of the roadblocks we had, and they were able to sit down and work out a solution to a very complex problem in their State. In California, I feel sorry for them because there are 53 of them, and so they have a real problem. In Alaska, there is only one of us. If I start arguing with myself, I know it is a problem; but these gentlemen were able to get together, and I want to compliment them. As I said, this bill has been stalled for 2 years, but we got together and we have been able to get past the rhetoric, identify real issues and come up with workable bipartisan solutions that will actually help the Corps of Engineers carry out its mission. This negotiation involved a lot of give and take, as I just mentioned. The result does not represent my initial positions nor those of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and that is the nature of compromise. The compromise language gives the Corps of Engineers the tools it needs to improve and expedite water resource projects. These provisions earned the support of all the members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and deserve the support of all Members of this House. Now that the debate over corps reform is past us, both the Congress and the Corps of Engineers can focus on meeting the Nation's navigation, flood control, and environmental restoration needs to provide economic and national security to improve our quality of life. I know some will complain about the cost of the Corps of Engineers projects, but these investments are critically important to the economy. Over 13 million jobs are dependent on trade, but our harbors are not ready to meet the increasing demands of international trade. Our farmers and our electric utilities depend on efficient waterways to move grain and coal, but over half are over 50 years old and two have been operating since the 19th century. And may I stress this again. Our goal in this committee is to relieve congestion. We must use our waterways to the best of our ability, as they are doing in other countries. Many communities along the rivers and shores are not protected from hurricanes and flooding, even though the cost of recovering from a flood is an average six times greater than the cost of investing in the infrastructure needed to prevent those damages. Finally, there are worthwhile environmental restoration projects to provide both environmental and economic benefits. The Water Resources Development Act addresses the needs in communities all over the country. Again, I want to thank the Members that worked on bringing this bill to the floor. It is a bill that can do the job for the Nation. I am very, very excited about having this legislation on the floor today. Mr. Chairman, there will be two amendments. My understanding is that one amendment will be offered and withdrawn. The other amendment, and I hope everybody listens very carefully, because I do have concerns about the effect on our ports, but we will discuss that in debate on those amendments and hopefully listen to all the arguments and then make the right decisions.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record at this point a letter from the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, to myself regarding H.R. 3087. House of Representatives, Committee on the Budget, Washington, DC, September 23, 2003. Hon. Don Young, Chairman, Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Young: I understand that the House is expected to consider a five-month extension of TEA21 and concerns have arisen as to whether this would have adverse budgetary implications for highway, highway safety, and mass transit programs when a long-term extension is considered next year. In particular, concerns have been raised that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure would be penalized should the short-term extension expire before the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) releases it baseline projections early next year. As you know, CBO is generally prohibited from assuming the continuation of any expired mandatory program. I am confident your committee will not be penalized for any temporary lapse in its spending authorities. For purposes of enforcing either the 2004 or 2005 budget resolution, the appropriate baseline would be the baseline underlying the budget resolution. The 2004 budget resolution assumes a multi-year extension of TEA21, and I can assure you that the House budget resolution for 2005 will also assume such an extension and I will work to maintain that position in conference. Further, it would be my intent, if necessary, to request that CBO produce an alternative baseline that assumes a full year extension and I would use this baseline to develop the FY 2005 budget resolution. Accordingly, it will make little difference as to whether the House ultimately adopts a five- or six month extension. Either way, I will make every attempt to ensure that the operative baseline reflects the continuation of these critical highway, highway safety, and mass transit programs. If I may be of any assistance as you move this important bill, please do not hesitate to contact me or Rich Meade, Chief of Staff of the Budget Committee, at 6-7270. Sincerely, Jim Nussle, Chairman. Mr. Speaker, 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 will state that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) makes a great statement, and I am well aware of what he said about the time frame. As we know, my druthers were 6 months. That probably would not have solved the problem. But it is my goal to have a bill before this session is closed down, introduced and vetted, and it is our hope that we can do our job as the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and that this House will move a bill over to the other body before the deadline; and I believe we can do that. Now, whether the other body can achieve its goals with five committees that handle this legislation is another story, let alone the conference. So it is going to be very difficult. But our job in this House, and I hope the gentleman agrees with me, is to do our job and to move the legislation, to move the ball forward, get it to the goal line, and then, hopefully, they will have the wisdom to drive it over and make a touchdown with the help of the other body. If not, unfortunately, we will probably be back here, but that is not my intent. My intent is to achieve that goal. But now we have to pass this, get it down to the President, have him sign it so our highways across this Nation can continue to be built, the jobs will still be in place, and the infrastructure can continue to grow as it needs to be.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, who does an outstanding job.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the gentlewoman has talked about, about getting out of Washington, D.C. As the gentlewoman knows, I am very sympathetic; and we will be addressing it in the full bill to try to solve some of those problems of having the ability to get the people out of Washington, if necessary, in a quick fashion. Our biggest goal of, I believe, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and members of the committee is to really address the issues of congestion across this whole Nation. I have had the privilege of being in 40 different States in the last 2 years. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has traveled with me and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). We go across this Nation, and we find a tremendous equal problem in every big city. New York, with all due respect to New York, if that one bridge was blown up, you would have 12 million people stranded with no way to supply. San Francisco and, I would suggest, L.A., Houston. So we have a national problem about congestion and the ability to move product and people to and fro; and it is my hope on this committee, with the members of this committee and with the help of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the staffs which we have, we will work really hard and we will be able to introduce a bill before we break this session that will meet those needs. Mr. Speaker, if I had full authority, we would not only meet the needs; we would be able to have the money. But under this system, this is a two-tiered system; it has to go from this committee to another committee, and that committee will have the responsibility of trying to raise the funds to meet the needs that we are going to pass out of the committee to do the job for the people, to be able to move the people in case of an emergency, but also to make sure that commerce continues to grow. Without the ability to grow, without the ability to have transportation, our economy will shrink. So that is my goal on the committee, and I am confident we can achieve those goals. The American public wants to do this. I am confident that as time goes by there will be a greater bit of wisdom in certain parts of this great city of ours to understand the needs as I have presented to the committee and the committee will be able to send to the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3087) to provide an extension of highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a law reauthorizing the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, as amended.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge immediate passage of H.R. 3087, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2003. The immediate enactment of this legislation is necessary to continue the highway construction, highway safety, transit, motor carrier and surface transportation research programs within the Department of Transportation for an additional 5 months after fiscal year 2003 and ends on September 30, 2003, just 6 days from today. If Congress does not pass a bill and send it to the President before the end of this fiscal year, four Department of Transportation agencies will close their doors and furlough their employees until Congress enacts an extension. Failure to pass a bill before the end of September also means that no State will be reimbursed for the Federal share of their transportation project costs, thus subjecting the Federal Government to breach of contract claims by the States. Moreover, high- wage infrastructure construction jobs, engineers, planners and other related jobs, would be lost. New highway projects will be shelved, safety grants will not be provided to the States, transit construction will be halted, and the Federal enforcement of motor carrier safety regulation on the highways and at the borders will end. I would like to thank at this time the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and his staff for their cooperation in drafting provisions of this bill under the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and his staff for their assistance in preparing the provisions in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 3087 provides over $14 billion in contract authority to the States to continue Federal highway programs and over $3 billion to continue grants to transit agencies around the country. It provides $142 million for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and $125 million to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for highway safety grants. Although this extension will provide funding for 5 months, on March 1 Congress will be faced with the same situation we face now; all the programs and the operation of the agencies will come to a screeching halt again. I want to stress my continued commitment to the multiyear reauthorization bill, but I am also committed to introducing a bill that meets the needs and improves our highways and transit systems and provides jobs. Obviously, we have to find the revenues necessary to enact the authorization that best meets the needs of the country. It is my intent, all with the help of God and everybody else, to introduce a bill before we adjourn this session of Congress. I am working very closely with the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), to achieve a bipartisan agreement that will result in the best possible bill. We expect to produce legislation that is developed in consultation with the Members of this House to solve their transportation problems, provide more equity to the States and reduce gridlock throughout the Nation. In the interim, Congress must pass H.R. 3087 so that these important infrastructure programs and the jobs associated with them can continue. I am submitting my full statement for the record, but I want to clarify that while I support the bill that is before the House today, I also introduced H.R. 3088, which was not scheduled. H.R. 3088 would have kept these programs operating through March, and also had a grace period during which the States could have been reimbursed for their expenditures and also could have used some of their unobligated funds. My personal view is that we should have passed a 6-month extension with a grace period, but I am trying to work cooperatively with the other body and with the leadership. I have been assured today that H.R. 3087 passes, and, when it does, the other body will take it up and pass it without amendment and send it to the President immediately so there are no disruptions of these programs. My support today is based on that assurance. That is the reason I have compromised on the length of the extension and the removal of the grace period for the States. We do not have the time to continue a debate on this extension. It must go to the President immediately and become law. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge immediate passage of H.R. 3087, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2003. The immediate enactment of this legislation is necessary to continue the highway construction, highway safety, transit, motor carrier, and surface transportation research programs within the Department of Transportation for an additional 5 months after fiscal year 2003 ends on September 30, 2003, just 6 days from today. If Congress does not pass a bill and send it to the President before the end of this fiscal year, four Department of Transportation agencies will close their doors and furlough their employees until Congress enacts an extension. Failure to pass a bill before the end of September also means that no State will be reimbursed for the Federal share of their transportation projects costs, thus subjecting the Federal Government to breach of contract claims by the States. Moreover, high wage infrastructure construction jobs, engineers, planners and other related jobs will be lost. New highway projects will be shelved, safety grants will not be provided to States, transit construction will be halted, and Federal enforcement of motor carrier safety regulations on the highways and at the borders will end. The total amounts provided in H.R. 3087 reflects 5/12s of the budget authority and associated outlays in the 2004 budget resolution that Congress passed this year. I would like to thank Chairman Jim Nussle and his staff for their cooperation in drafting the provisions of this bill under the jurisdiction of the budget committee. I also want to thank Chairman Bill Thomas and his staff for their assistance in preparing the provisions in the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee. H.R. 3087 provides over $14 billion in contract authority to the States to continue the Federal Highway Program and over $3 billion to continue grants to transit agencies around the country. It provides $142 million for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to make grants to the States to enforce commercial safety regulations and to continue truck and bus inspections at our southern border with Mexico. H.R. 3087 provides $125 million to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for highway safety grants, occupant protection grants, and alcohol driving countermeasure grants. This legislation will allow the temporary transfer of funds among core highway programs, to give States flexibility in administering their programs under a short-term extension. However, the bill provides that any transfers will be restored when the next highway and transit authorization bill is passed. Although this extension will provide funding for 5 months, on March 1 Congress will be faced with the same situation we face now. All of the programs and the operations of the agencies will come to a screeching halt again. I want to stress my continued commitment to a multi-year reauthorization bill but, and I also remain committed to introducing a bill that meets the needs and improves our highways and transit systems and provides jobs. On a national basis, congestion costs more than $67 billion annually--more than 3.6 billion hours of delay and 5.7 billion gallons of excess fuel consumed. The average driver is losing more than a week and a half of work, 62 hours a year, sitting in gridlock. The average cost of congestion per peak road traveler is $1,160 a year. For every $1 billion invested in Federal highway and transit spending, 47,500 jobs are created or sustained. Nearly a third of all fatal crashes each year are caused by substandard road conditions and roadside hazards. More than 42,000 Americans are killed and 3.3 million are seriously injured each year on the Nation's highways. Obviously, we have to find the revenues necessary to enact the authorization that best meets the needs of the country. It is my intent to introduce a bill before we adjourn this session of Congress. I am working cooperatively with my ranking minority member, Congressman Oberstar to achieve a bipartisan agreement that will result in the best possible bill. We expect to produce legislation that is developed in consultation with the Members of this House to solve our transportation problems, provide more equity to states, and reduce gridlock throughout the Nation. In the interim, Congress must pass H.R. 3087 so that these important infrastructure programs and the jobs associated with them can continue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.