Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. However, we cannot be certain that Congress will move quickly to enact appropriation bills in January. In fact, with reorganization activities and a new majority in the Senate, there is a high level of uncertainty about timing for the entire appropriation process. Because of this uncertainty, it is imperative we absolutely be clear that the highway program will continue at the full enacted funding level of $31.8 billion, as it is cleared today. That is the level we are spending monies today, not $27.7 billion. It is important to note that except for the highway program, this program, the one that affects every one of your districts, that this continuing resolution continues all activities under the fiscal year of 2002 funding levels, all activities. But they picked out the highway program. It is unfair to cut the highway programs in your district. Now, Members should keep that in mind very closely when they cast their vote. Every dollar of the $31.8 billion funding level we support comes from the highway trust fund. It does not come from the general budget. It does not come from the general fund. It is the trust fund. It is the money of the users of the highways. It is funded by fuel taxes, it is paid by the highway users; and those highway funds should be used to sustain jobs and reduce congestion and improve our economy. Mr. Speaker, I cannot for the life of me, I have talked to my appropriations brother, I have talked to the Speaker, I have talked to the majority leader, I have talked to the minority leader. I do not know where this is coming from. If this is coming from the White House, shame on them. This is not their money, it is our money; and to this have this one program singled out is inappropriate. I have talked to the Committee on Rules chairman, and I talked to the Speaker, and I have talked to the leadership of this House; and I said this is not fair, we ought not to do this. Leave it at $31 billion, as it should be, come back and do the job right and not continue to nip at us. This is the fourth time we have done this. I want to know who is responsible. Can anybody give me an idea where this is coming from? They cannot do that. I as the chairman of the committee and all of my 75 Members better understand one thing. If we leave it at $27 billion, you can keep one thing in mind: this is an attempt by this administration to use this trust fund money to try to use it for other uses in the budget instead of as highway funds. So for the first time, I am going to ask my people to vote ``no'' on this rule. Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat embarrassed, because last month the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I had this discussion on the floor, and I had thought I had an agreement to protect this; and I said specifically then to accept the $27.1 billion, the level that was decided, but with the understanding that we would spend it at $31.8 billion if it did not go beyond the first of the year. What has happened here, again, I have not had anybody tell me where this is coming from. It is not your money. It is not the White House's money. This belongs to the users of the highway. We can come back, pass another rule, and make sure that we do the job right. And, believe me, I will find out where this is coming from. You are not going to take this money away from the users of the highway. They paid for it. They want the highways. They want the infrastructure. We talk about stimulating the economy. Forget all of these other programs they are talking about. Let us create jobs by building our bridges and our highways. Let us do it. If we want to stimulate something, let us stimulate it with real jobs and not make believe. So I would just keep in mind, let us put this rule down and come back with the right rule.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I am watching that side, and whoever is talking, you can forget any highway funds.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I do not do this lightly. In my period of time being in the majority, I have never rose opposing a rule, so this is a very serious moment for me. I want my side to understand why I am doing this and this side to understand also why I am doing it, and suggest a ``no'' vote on this rule. House Joint Resolution 124 will continue to keep in place a spending limit of $27.7 billion on Federal aid to highway programs. Last month I agreed to this limitation; but I was clear that if the continuing resolution ran beyond December 31, I would move to strike the language. This continuing resolution runs until January 11, 2003. That does not sound like a long time. However, we cannot be certain that the Congress will move quickly to enact appropriation bills in January.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Real Interstate Driver Equity Act of 2001, H.R. 2546, as amended by the Senate. This legislation has been under consideration for more than 3 years now, and I am glad that we have been able to find a fair and agreeable solution in the waning days of the 107th Congress. I want to especially recognize my colleague from Missouri, Mr. Blunt, who sponsored this bill and has championed the cause of for-hire motor carriers. I believe this legislation will remove barriers to passenger choice and effective management of transportation services.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that today we will send H.R. 1070, the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002, to President Bush to be enacted into law. The Great Lakes are a vital resources for both the United States and Canada, but have been adversely impacted by over 200 years of development and industrialization. This is not a situation that can be addressed by pointing fingers and suing people under the Superfund law or other liability statutes. The solution provided by the Great Lakes Legacy Act is to address sediment contamination through cooperative efforts and public-private partnerships. Cleanup activities funded by this bill can be carried out as separate projects or in conjunction with other efforts to clean up sediments-- including efforts being carried out under consent decrees or consent orders authorized by other environmental laws and efforts of the Army Corps of Engineers. This approach is supported by both industrial and environmental groups in the Great Lakes Basin. The Senate amendments that is before the House today consists of the House text of H.R. 1070, as title I. Accordingly, the report of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee provides the relevant legislative history for this title. The Senate amendment also includes, as title II, a limited authorization to EPA to support activities proposed by State and local governments to help restore Lake Champlain. Finally, the Senate amendment includes, as title III, some miscellaneous items, including the restoration of various Clean Water Act reports to help my Committee's oversight of Clean Water Act programs. I urge all members to support the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1070.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Reclaiming my time, it has been fixed with this letter, which I include for the Record. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, October 15, 2002. Hon. Don Young, Chairman, Committee on Transportion and Infrastructure, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: OMB has reviewed section 137 of Public Law 107-240, Making Further Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year (FY) 2003, which passed the House on October 11, 2002. The enactment of section 137 will have no impact on the level of highway jobs or the level of highway spending for states. The effect of section 137 is to retain the FY 2002 rate of operations for the Federal aid highway program at $31.8 billion for the duration of the continuing resolution by requiring OMB to apportion funds at an annualized rate of $31.8 billion during that period. As of today, OMB has apportioned funds in accordance with section 137. Much confusion has surrounded the language in section 137 that limits total annual obligations for this program while operating under continuing resolutions to no more than $27.7 billion. This provision, as many of the terms of the current resolution, is subject to section 107(c) of P.L. 107-229, which establishes the date of expiration of the continuing resolution. H.J. Res. 122 sets that date of expiration at October 18, 2002. Consequently, it is mathematically impossible for the highway program, spending at an annualized rate of $31,8 billion, to reach the $27.7 billion cap on total obligations prior to mid-August 2003, well beyond the expiration date of this or any other continuing resolution that is expected in the future. Therefore, the effect of section 137 is to provide that the highway program continue at the FY 2002 enacted level of $31.8 billion until the final FY 2003 funding level is determined in the context of House, Senate and Administration negotiations of the FY 2003 Transportation Appropriations bill. Sincerely, Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Director.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Wait a minute. The gentleman saw the language.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. What is fact? The fact is we are going to spend money at $31 billion which we did not have prior to this until August if we work under a continuing resolution. We are not going to work under a continuing resolution, and the gentleman knows that. There will be a solving of this problem with the Senate if the Senate ever gets busy, and we will probably arrive at a figure of around $31 billion.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Absolutely. I heard and I agree if we were working under a continuing resolution that would happen, and by August we would not be able to spend the money at $31 billion; but that is not going to happen.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and his presentation. The gentleman and I participated and both signed off on the language in this resolution. That was last week. Nothing has changed. I am happy to say that this week my back does not hurt quite as much as it did last week, but the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) raised this point, and I will say it again, this is for political purposes. It is really not the way to do business. If Members remember, in fact, when the President came down with his budget, there was about $23 billion in the highway program. We on a bipartisan basis raised it to $27.1 billion, and this House voted on that level. But under a continuing resolution, I want to spend the money actually at $31.8 billion; and that is what we will do under this resolution as long as we are working under a continuing resolution. But there is a lot of what-ifs being brought up here. No Member believes that we will be working under a continuing resolution until August. That is very unlikely. I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will not allow that, nor will myself. The Senate has not acted, nor have we in the final conclusion of this highway program. I see the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and his staff, and they signed off on this. The gentleman signed off on this. Everybody signed off on it. That really bothers me when I see Members trying to distort this on the floor of the House again for political purposes. I think that is improper. We have been a very bipartisan committee, and I will continue to do that; but do not use this floor to try to convey something that is not all true. Not all true. We will be able to spend this money and the States will be able to program this money until August under this resolution. I expect truthfully when the Senate and the House get together, we will arrive at the $31 billion. I expect that to happen. So what we are doing is saying what if. We are in this position now. This is where we are going to be. I heard we are cutting jobs. We are not cutting anything in this resolution. I think it is improper to try to convey the idea that we are trying to do something that we did not agree to beforehand.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate we cannot do that. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2003. In consultation with my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and in consultation with the leadership, I am pleased that this resolution ensures that the Federal highway program will continue at the fiscal year 2002 rate of $31.8 billion. This reverses the Office of Management and Budget's surprising decision last week to reduce the highway program to a $27.7 billion rate of operations. This decision was contrary to the Congress's intent that programs be continued at the current rate until final appropriation bills can be agreed to and enacted. The language in this joint resolution is in no way binding with regard to the final fiscal year 2003 transportation appropriations bill that will eventually be enacted. This year's final highway funding level will be appropriately determined at a later date in the context of House and Senate negotiations on that bill. In the meantime, this resolution ensures that funding for the highway program will continue at the fiscal year 2002-enacted rate of $31.8 billion. This will protect the good-wage jobs and make our infrastructure whole. Again, I want to stress this has been done with the work of the minority on my committee and myself and the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the Speaker of the House. We will continue what we said we were going to do. When there is a budget, when there is an appropriation bill, when there are negotiations done, that can be a different date and a different amount. Now we are on the right track to make sure that our highways are continuing to be built and rebuilt, and that our bridges are built and repaired, also.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time. I reclaim my time. This was an agreement we reached, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and myself, to in fact have the money spent as a continuing resolution to the level of $31,799,104,000, and it reverts back to $27.7 billion. That is what this House agreed to. It also says that none of the obligated funds will be affected. That is in there, too. It also says, by the way, it can be changed at a later date; and that will probably be true, too. But to allude to those people that depend upon our highways, and no one defends those highways better than I do, no one works harder to make sure that the transportation system is improved. It is so much better than what was proposed. Mr. Speaker, to stand up on television and play the political game on this floor of the House is wrong. The Committee on Appropriations chairman is trying to do his job. I have 64 bills over in the other body that have not been acted on. How many bills in the other body belong to the gentleman that the majority leader in the Senate has not acted on? Do not ask us to play the political game against my leaders in this House and say it is all their fault. Look at the Senate side. Look at the Senate side. What have they done? Have they passed a budget? Have they looked at the appropriating bills? No, they have not. In addition, when we get done, I will probably insist on the Senate side to bring us more money. But, in reality, they worked in good faith. Our leaders worked in good faith. I worked in good faith. My ranking member worked in good faith. And to stand up on this floor and play the political card is absolutely wrong for this House. If the gentleman wants to have power that bad, go at it. But I am thinking of the people of the United States right now. I am thinking about the people who depend on transportation and on the bridges the gentleman talked about. There is more money in this. We have $4.4 billion put back into it when we passed the budget. And the gentleman voted for it. I am a little excited right now because my back hurts, but the fact of the matter is I have watched this 30 years. I have watched this body for 30 years, and ever since we put the television cameras in, debate on this floor has deteriorated and is for political purposes instead of solving problems. Our job is to solve the problems and represent the people of this Nation for the best of this Nation, not for political purposes. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I was in my office watching this debate. If I could do one thing in this Congress, being one of the longest-serving congressmen, it would be to shut off the television. The nonsense I heard from that side of the aisle that affects my committee is pure, pure BS. That is exactly what it is. And they are playing the political game on television so the people at home can watch this dishonesty as they present it. I worked very hard on this and I must tell the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I worked very hard, including the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), who is the ranking member, to make sure as it came down that we reinstated, and $31,799,104,000 is going to be spent. Yes, that is what it is. Just read it. Has the gentleman read it?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce, along with the Ranking Member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, James Oberstar, the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman, John J. Duncan, Jr., and the Ranking Member of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, Peter DeFazio, the Water Resources Development Act of 2002. Every two years, Congress makes it a high priority to meet our Nation's water resources needs by enacting a Water Resources Development Act. Through this legislation, Congress authorizes the Corps of Engineers to carry out its primary missions of providing navigation improvements at harbors and waterways, flood damage reduction in our communities and coastal areas, and environmental restoration along the Nation's rivers, and lakes. These projects have a profound impact on the economy of this Nation by reducing transportation costs, saving lives, homes, and businesses from the ravages of flooding, and improving our quality of life. The standard of living for every American has been positively affected by the work the Corps does with its local partners. Under authorities enacted in Water Resources Development Acts, the Corps of Engineers constructs harbors and navigation channels. Over 13 million American jobs are depended on trade, making our ports and waterways vital to our economic, as well as national, security. Our harbors currently handle over 2 billion tons of cargo a year, and that volume is projected to double by 2020. We need to be ready to handle the larger ships that will carry that cargo or face potential loss of trade. Our inland navigation system is critical to our transportation system. Inland waterways cover 12,000 miles and carry \1/6\th of the Nation's inter-city freight, at a cost per ton-mile that is \1/2\ that of rail and \1/10\th that of trucks. We need to keep transportation of goods on our inland waterways efficient to keep our farmers competitive in the world market. The Water Resources Development Act of 2002 helps our Nation stay competitive by authorizing or modifying over 50 projects, studies, and policies relating to navigation improvements, as well as related projects and policy changes to improve the management of dredged material. Water Resources Development Acts also authorize the Corps to protect towns and cities from the ravages of floods. Over the past 10 years, flood damage reduction projects built by the Corps with local partners have prevented more than $208 billion in damages. Water Resources Development Act of 2002 continues to provide this protection by authorizing or modifying over 75 projects and studies relating to flood damage reduction, and nearly 20 related projects for shoreline protection. Since 1990, environmental restoration also has been a primary mission of the Corps. These projects range from small aquatic ecosystem restoration projects to multi-billion dollar projects like the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The Water Resources Development Act of 2002 continues this mission by authorizing or modifying over 40 environmental restoration projects and studies. In this legislation, we also recognize that there are other water resources challenges that face this Nation where the Corps' expertise could help--particularly since needs for water supply, water quality, and navigation often are interrelated. The Water Resource Development Act of 2002 provides additional opportunities for the Corps to lend its technical expertise where a community or a region has decided to address water resources matters on a watershed or river basin basis. There are some who believe we do not need a Corps of Engineers Civil Works program. Some say it openly, and propose to eliminate funding the Corps. Others are more subtle and instead are trying to convince Congress to add so many procedural hurdles that a single person could have the ability to stop a water resources project, no matter how important the project is to the safety of our citizens or the strength or our economy. I have a different view of the Corps and a different vision for its future. First, I believe that this Nation needs an Army Corps of Engineers. Most members of the House of Representative agree. We have received request from nearly 200 members for over 400 separate water resources projects, studies, and modifications to projects. These requests are generated at the local level, and are tailored to meet local needs. No matter what some may say here in Washington, back home people want and need a vital and continuing civil works program. Second, I support the Corps process for formulating water resources projects. Under the Corps planning process, all projects must be in the Federal interest and must be economically justified and environmentally sound, but the details of a project are developed through a close interaction between the Corps and the local communities that share in the cost of the project. This is a bottom-up process that allows projects to be designed to best meet local needs. Deciding where investments in water resources are warranted is a complex task often involving sophisticated economic analyses. While there has been some criticism of how the Corps has attempted to do these analyses in certain projects, the fact is no other Federal agency requires its projects to go through a similar benefit cost review. There have been some individual cases where the economic analysis of a project has been flawed. This is a personnel and management problem, not a problem with the Corps' statutory authorities. The Chief of Engineers is taking steps to address this issue through improved training and establishing centers of expertise. We in Congress also have many oversight tools that give us the ability to investigate the merits of a project, and we have demonstrated that we are not hesitant to use these tools to scrutinize controversial projects. After reviewing all of the requests from members, it is clear to us that the House of Representatives supports changes to the Corps civil works program to speed the delivery of projects, not changes that will lengthen the Corps' process and add costs. For example, we have received over 40 requests from members asking that their local project sponsors be allowed to move ahead of the Corps and receive credit for work they begin on projects, while the Corps' lengthy study and review process in underway. Other members of Congress requested statutory language directing the Corps to expedite its planning process and deliver needed projects more quickly. No member of Congress has asked the Committee to add more procedural hurdles, more delay, and more costs to their projects. The Corps civil works program is nearly unique. The Corps is a Federal agency that partners with local agencies to solve local problems. The needs are identified at the local level and the solutions are developed through a bottom-up process--they are not thrust upon a community as top-down mandates. I am proud to say that the Water Resources Development Act of 2002 continues in this tradition.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which I chair, is conducting a series of fact finding hearings as we prepare to reauthorize the Nation's highway and mass transit programs next year. Surface transportation and the immense infrastructure that supports our Nation's transportation system extends to every corner of this country and every Member's district. That is why we are now examining the effectiveness and funding needs of existing programs, as well as the need for any new direction that the infrastructure of our country may need into the future. I have said many times that I am concerned about the state of the Nation's infrastructure. This concern is shared by many members of my committee. The hearings underway in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee are serving to highlight the need for a modern, effective transportation infrastructure. Our economic health depends upon our roadways and transportation infrastructure. To ignore the physical state of these systems is to invite disruption that could have enormous economic consequences to this country. While we examine our highway programs, we will also review mass transit programs and other programs to address and avoid congestion as well as new technology that might enable us to become more efficient and to improve the transport of people and goods. During the process of reviewing the infrastructure needs of the Nation and the role of highway and mass transit programs, it is my intention to invite comments on the future benefits and needs for the hydrogen option in our transportation system. We may be years away from actually employing fleets of, vehicles fueled by hydrogen but we owe it to ourselves to determine how this important new fuel source can be integrated along our transportation infrastructure. Just think of the different dynamic we would face in the Middle East if our transportation system were equipped with hydrogen vehicles and refueling stations based upon hydrogen. Nearly fifty years ago, during the Presidency of Dwight Eisenhower, the Nation embarked upon the construction of the federal interstate highway system. Today, after thousands of miles of highways have been constructed and billions of dollars expended, we have an interstate highway system that is the envy of the world. We have a transportation network, five decades in the making, that is the lifeline upon which commerce flows. That system required enormous and sustained federal support as well as cooperation with state and local governments and agencies and the ideas, innovation and hard work of hundreds of thousands of people from the private sector. Many of the improvements we take for granted today took decades to design, improve and construct. I believe it is time to begin work on an effort that may become just as important as that of President Eisenhower, an effort to use hydrogen as a key component of our transportation base. I believe it is time for us to realize that our future surface transportation system may well be fueled using hydrogen, so we must begin the planning and thinking now. We are at the question stage of this process. While I am not saying we are ready to set a final course of action to install hydrogen fuel infrastructure, I do believe that hydrogen can become the key part of the nation's future transportation system. As Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I believe that we should undertake a process, in the reauthorization of our highway programs, to study the feasibility of hydrogen infrastructure in the future. This process will allow us to question timing and to ask if such a transformation is feasible, is real, is viable, is cost efficient and is in the Nation's best interest. Because our bill will authorize the highway program for at least six years, it is important that we not miss this window of opportunity to ask these questions and possibly, to initiate actions that will expedite any transformation process. The automobile industry and President Bush have announced an initiative known as Freedom CAR, an industry and government research and development program to develop fuel cell vehicles as well as needed R&D relating to the hydrogen fuel that will power these vehicles. We already know a great deal about fuel cells and we already know a great deal about the production of hydrogen. But, we clearly do not know enough. The effort of the private industry and the Administration to develop these sources of fuel can be assisted by the review and development of a meaningful infrastructure system to refuel these vehicles. Industry and government researchers alike have asserted that a focused infrastructure development program likely will garner the confidence needed to produce the vehicles. As we develop the confidence to proceed it also will be necessary to commit to the production of a sufficient number of vehicles for widespread demonstration. Thereafter we would be positioned to move forward towards the manufacture of thousands and then millions of such vehicles. During each of these stages, a meaningful and effective refueling hydrogen infrastructure will be needed. We should avoid a chicken and egg problem: What comes first the vehicle or the fueling infrastructure? Will the vehicles be produced if the infrastructure is not readily available? Will the infrastructure be made available if the vehicles are not forthcoming? The infrastructure should be developed in parallel with the vehicles. Consumers are unlikely to buy fuel cell vehicles over traditional vehicles unless the hydrogen fuel is available. We may never see the mass production of fuel cell vehicles, even after they are technically proven, unless the fueling infrastructure is in place. We are fighting a war on terrorism that is precipitated, in part, by our country's dependence upon foreign supplies of crude oil. The lives of our military personnel are at risk every day. As long as we continue dependence upon foreign sources of oil we will face war and an enormous human and economic toll that is placed upon our society and economy. If we do nothing, our dependency on foreign oil is projected to grow from fifty percent today to more than 60 percent by 2020. That dependency has grown already from 35 percent in the mid-1970's when we first confronted war over oil in the Middle East. Congress is facing a question that will partially ease the dependence on foreign oil sources as it conferences the energy bill. In the House, we say we should allow exploration and development of a fringe area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in my state. I passionately believe that this is vital right now. The answer to oil dependency is a sensible U.S. domestic oil production in ANWR, as well as looking for other solutions that will ease the problem in years to come. We need to develop all possible sources of energy to insure that our country has a diversity of energy sources available. Hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe is a source of energy that should be developed for application in the long term. It can be derived from gasoline, natural gas, methanol, renewables, even water. Someday, like electricity today, hydrogen could become a type of energy used in daily transportation and as a source of fuel for electricity generation to power homes, business and industry. Now is the time to begin a serious investigation that looks beyond a successful research and development program. We need to consider the need to begin our public and private efforts now to create an infrastructure to serve and fuel a transportation system based in part upon fuel cell vehicles and the need for hydrogen. I do not know if there will be success or failure of these efforts to perfect the technology but I think it wise to consider those actions we can take. Our design should be to encourage and maintain momentum towards adoption of a new form of transportation based not entirely upon fossil fuels from other lands. We need to begin a process to determine government's proper role in this effort that may be as technically challenging as the Apollo program and as important as the Interstate Highway System. Regardless of the energy source that propels our vehicles, now or in the future, we must also ensure that it pays its fair share to the Highway Trust Fund, if we are to maintain a user fee based system to invest in our transportation infrastructure. The reauthorization effort should examine where we are, what needs to be done, what resources will be required, and what partnerships need to be encouraged if we are to add hydrogen as a cornerstone of our transportation sector in a timely manner. The Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Petri, and Ranking Member, Mr. Borski, can get the perspectives of all relevant sectors on this issue and address them in the reauthorization bill. I expect to be actively involved in this effort as well.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I can only agree with what has been said about FEMA. And if I thought for a moment that homeland security would not become a reality, I would be supporting the gentleman from Minnesota's (Mr. Oberstar) amendment. But I am also a very practical individual who believes that if we are going to have homeland security and FEMA is in it, it ought to be an entity as one unit. I frankly do not know how this got into the committee's markup because what it does is weaken FEMA. It actually, I believe, is a turf war, and I think that is very unfortunate because at the very beginning when President Bush asked for Homeland Security, I told him personally that my opposition to the proposal was not a turf war, it was how it was going to be constructed. I will give the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) credit and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) credit for, in fact, answering most of my questions on the Coast Guard, and I thank them for that because it is the right thing to do. I do think it was wrong thing to do to divide FEMA. I believe FEMA should stay intact as an entity so it can do the job people expect it to do, so it can do the job it has done and will continue to do the job under the Homeland Security bill. A lot has been said here about the importance of FEMA responding, and as all of my colleagues know it, in the New York tragedy that happened with the terrorists, FEMA was on the frontlines and did an outstanding job. So I compliment FEMA for that. Much has been said about who supports and who does not support. I can say that I have found no one that opposes my amendment other than the Committee on the Judiciary. The firefighters support my amendment, as they should. The FEMA people themselves support my amendment as an entity. This was not the President's suggestion. This, in fact, was the ad hoc committee's suggestion. I think in retrospect, as they look at it, maybe there was a slight mistake made, not intentionally, but because someone else asked for it and did not understand the ratification of it. So I am asking my colleagues tonight and hopefully in the vote tomorrow that if the gentleman from Minnesota's (Mr. Oberstar) amendment fails to at least accept the idea of keeping FEMA as an entity, because if that was not to happen, I think we would lose the total effectiveness of FEMA as a respondent, as we mentioned, to earthquakes and terrorists attacks, et cetera. So I again ask my colleagues to support this amendment and make sure that we have an agency that can do the job correctly under the Secretary of Homeland Security. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. I would like to just say a couple of small things about this. I hope the gentleman from Minnesota understands what I am trying to do; I am confident he does. I hope the rest of the committee understands that FEMA separated, as proposed by the ad hoc committee, would be a disaster. The President supports my position. I believe every member of the committee other than the Committee on the Judiciary supports my position, and I ask for a ``yes'' vote on this very important document. Much has been said tonight about who supports the firefighters the most. I will say the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is outstanding in that arena, but I also say that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is also outstanding in that arena; and the gentleman from Minnesota's (Mr. Oberstar) intent to keep FEMA outside of the separate agency should be admired. I do not think it is a reality, but in saying that, if it is not outside, let us make it whole. Let us make it as one. Let us make it an entity where we know where the money is going. Let us not make it an entity that goes into another agency that has frankly misused their dollars, has not used them correctly. In fact, the GAO says that, and I think it has been raised up before that let us keep this agency intact, let us make sure it works, let us make sure our constituents can be responded to if there is a national disaster, man-made disasters, so we have somebody to turn to and they have somebody to listen to and our constituents are served. That is all I am asking in this amendment. I urge a quick passage of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the information I have, and again, I do not have anything in writing, they have testified in favor of my amendment, have written in favor of the amendment; and I think it is up to the Congress and I talked to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) about it to make sure, as this new agency is created, we fund FEMA in toto as it should be to carry forth its duties. If the gentleman would further yield to me, what I am trying to do here is, I told the gentleman, if I had my way, I would be supporting the gentleman's amendment, as the committee did, but realistically, I do not think that is possible. So I have to do what is best for FEMA and that is keep it as an entity and not have it split up because that would be a disaster, as the gentleman and I know. So that is really what I am trying to do is put everything back together again. I think it was inadvertently split apart

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

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if I can remind my good friend from Texas, they all came from the Committee on the Judiciary that signed that letter. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), chairman of a very, very important subcommittee under the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that handles FEMA.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), an outstanding supporter of the firefighters of America to speak on my amendment. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)