[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 121 (Thursday, September 30, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7869-H7887]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2004, PART V
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 811 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 811
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5183) to provide an
extension of 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. The bill shall be considered
as read for amendment. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 811 is a closed rule that
provides for consideration of H.R. 5183, the Surface Transportation Act
of 2004. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of
the bill and provides 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule further provides one
motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
currently has under its consideration the multiyear reauthorization of
the Transportation Equity Act. The current authorization expires at
midnight tonight and the bill before us today provides funding for
essential programs for an additional 8 months, through May 31, 2005.
This extension is necessary to give the authorizing conferees
additional time to agree on a larger reauthorization bill.
{time} 1030
This Congress recognizes the many needs of our Nation and is
answering the call by diligently working through its process to produce
a bill that deals with the Nation's priorities in a whole host of
areas.
The final authorization bill will ensure that we have a reliable and
stable transportation infrastructure from Federal highways and highway
safety to public transportation and motor-carrier safety programs.
In the meantime, the extension before us today authorizes $24.5
billion for the Federal Aid Highway program for highway and bridge
construction and safety-related infrastructure improvements. Mr.
Speaker, $5.2 billion is authorized for the Federal Transit
Administration for grants to State and local transit agencies to reduce
congestion and ensure mobility for all Americans in urban and rural
areas.
Additionally, the bill authorizes $200 million for highway safety
programs, including programs to encourage seatbelt use and prevent
drunk driving. The $287 million is authorized for the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration for truck and bus-related safety
programs.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill also releases the final portion of
contract authority and obligation authority for
[[Page H7870]]
the highway program in fiscal year 2004. This funding was reserved
until the end of the fiscal year and is now being used to ensure that
States receive at least a 90.5 percent minimum guaranteed rate of
return on their Highway Trust Fund contributions.
Without our action today, vital programs and projects under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation will be put on hold.
States will not be reimbursed with the Federal share of projects.
Safety grants will not be provided to States, and transit construction
will be halted, all of which puts jobs at risk.
Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot allow States and transportation
projects to suffer. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying extension.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Reynolds), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes,
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this rule and the underlying bill are for an 8-month
extension of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century, TEA
21. It marks the sixth extension of that landmark legislation since it
expired last year and reveals, once again, the rank and utter
incompetence of the Republican leadership to get a transportation
reauthorization bill. This extension, while absolutely necessary to
keep the Nation's highway and transportation agencies running is,
simply stated, another glaring failure of the Republican leadership in
this session of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, let us pause for a moment to remind everyone of the
facts. They are in charge of the White House. They are in charge of the
Senate, and they are in charge of the House of Representatives. The
transportation reauthorization bill is one of the most strongly
supported, popular and bipartisan measures to be considered in the
House. The programs authorized in this bill touch every American and
affect their lives every single day. There are probably only a handful
of Members who do not want to see a transportation bill reauthorized
for another 6 years. Nevertheless, this President and the Republican
leadership, which have presided over a historic loss of more than 2
million American jobs, are stonewalling a transportation bill which
will create 47,000 new jobs for every $1 billion of investment.
The refusal of this leadership to work in good faith with the other
body is costing our economy precious jobs, while the condition of our
roads and bridges continue to deteriorate. Instead of providing real
leadership, the majority party and the President have let the conferees
twist in the wind while we continue to pass short-term extension after
short-term extension of these important programs. The States, which we
were elected to represent, are left to guess at when we will have a
transportation bill, as they endeavor to undertake critically important
public works projects. According to the American Association of State
Highway Transportation officials, 33 States say that a short-term
extension rather than enactment of a 6-year bill will mean $2.1 billion
in project delays and the loss of over 90,000 jobs.
Now, I understand that the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and everybody on the committee are doing the
best they can given the Draconian allocations set by the Republican
leadership. The members of that committee, the bipartisan cooperation
of that committee deserves to be praised by all of us, and it should be
an example to the rest of this body. I support these extensions because
we cannot afford to let these programs expire. But it is important to
know that the leadership of this House and the administration have not
done all they can to ensure that the full reauthorization is completed
and signed before the programs expire.
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the President is the leader of his
party. Where is the leadership? The transportation bill will provide
every American with the roads and bridges that they need. It will
provide economic stimulus across the country with various projects that
are written into it. And, most importantly, this bill will create new
jobs at a time when new jobs are desperately needed. But instead of
looking out for the American public, the leadership and the President
have held on to their ideology to the detriment of this country.
So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say again that while I support this
extension, I am disappointed and discouraged by the way the leadership
has so profoundly mismanaged this process, and I hope that we can do
better next year.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is now almost October 1, and we are getting into the election
season. I expect the gentleman from Massachusetts to have some finger-
pointing going on. But I was here, as he was, when the debate occurred
on transportation, and I would say that the authorizers had some pretty
good, wholehearted debate that seemed to almost be on the same page
between Republicans and Democrats, the majority and the minority of
this House.
I would remind all of us that while we had some harmony passing that
legislation in the House and apparently in the other body, they had
some harmony on what they passed, we have, as we well know as students
of government, to pass an identical piece of legislation in the House,
in the Senate and the President to sign it, or if he vetoes it, it
would require a two-thirds vote in both of the bodies of Congress.
Now, what we have seen, because the other body has publicly debated
some of their positions, is that we have disagreements between the
House and the other body and we have some from the White House on just
what the spending will be. But while we are in an election year, we
need to make sure we also get some of the facts back here. And that is
that my understanding of this extender, is that the 2005 authorization
is using the 2004 levels, and there is absolutely zero loss of
anything, that each State will have their money. As a matter of fact,
in the underlying legislation, it is my understanding that we will see
that the $2 billion that Members on both sides of the aisle worked hard
to achieve for their districts will also be distributed to those States
under the current formula.
Now, I cannot speak for Massachusetts, but I know, in New York,
number one, that is going to be fair and equitable money. Number two,
it is still a jobs bill that is keeping my people working across my
State and, quite frankly, I think across the 50 States. So when we look
at this, we also need to come to terms with a funding level of
transportation authorization in a future 6-year bill that is equitable
for all of us. And we know that different regions of the country have
different viewpoints, and we know that non-mass-transit States have
different views than those who are in high-growth States looking to
develop further road infrastructure in their communities. It is not an
easy bill to put together to get a 6-year consensus in this body, let
alone between the House, the Senate, and the White House.
But the important thing that is to be noted today as we preserve
those jobs, those jobs are working, and a ``yes'' vote today keeps
these projects moving forward and protects those jobs. A ``no'' vote
puts people out of work. I will willing to predict, Mr. Speaker, that
we will have strong bipartisan support for the extension over the next
8 months.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York, for his comments. I
always enjoy listening to his interesting spin on things.
The fact of the matter is, the problem is not with the authorizers.
The authorizers have done a great job. As I said, we need to praise, in
a bipartisan way, the members of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. But the problem is with the leadership, and the problem
is with the White House who is insisting on unbelievably low numbers
for the reauthorization of this bill.
As a result of not having a 6-year bill, there are a number of States
that have put projects on hold, and that means that these projects are
not being built. They are not going forward. The jobs are not being
created. We should have done better.
We are all going to support this extension. We have to. We have no
[[Page H7871]]
choice. This is the right thing to do. I am just lamenting the fact
that we should have had a 6-year bill, and I regret that the White
House and the leadership were not able to get together and make this a
priority, especially at a time when there is record job loss.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the explanation of my
friend, the gentleman from New York, and I agree with a number of the
things he said. There will be a large, bipartisan majority supporting
this extension, but the notion that somehow there are not problems
associated with the repeated failure of Congress to pass, despite what
my friend from New York says, what should be one of the easiest bills.
We can take the bill that passed the Senate and put it on the floor of
the House, and I am quite confident that it would pass with an
overwhelming majority. It passed the other body with some 72 or 73
votes. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure offered up an
approach to the Floor of the House that was substantially above that
level. We have assembled the broadest coalition in the history of
infrastructure legislation. We have interests ranging from the Sierra
Club to the Chamber of Commerce, from the Women's Federation Garden
Club of America to the cyclists, to the people who put down asphalt,
who all agree on the basic structure of this legislation.
There has been a lot of hard work on behalf of the gentleman from
Alaska and the gentleman from Minnesota to try and craft a piece of
legislation that is acceptable. I see on the floor here my friends, the
gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Illinois, who have been
working, chairing the subcommittee, trying to put something forward
underneath these artificial restrictions.
But the point is that it is not a failure of agreement between the
Members of the two bodies of Congress. We are substantially in
agreement, and we are in agreement with the vast majority of the
American public. And the failure to allow that agreement to be fully
and fairly debated on this floor and enacted means that we are holding
in suspense important transportation priorities.
Yes, we are going to allow the spigot to be opened, or rather, we
will avoid slamming the spigot closed at midnight tonight. I do not
think anybody in their right mind thinks that we would or should do
that. But that does not mean that there are not negative problems
associated with it. We have projects in the Pacific Northwest that were
slated to go forward that are multiyear in nature, and because of the
uncertainty, these are on hold; significant problems that speak to
economic development, that speak to environmental protection, to
reducing congestion. And it is not just in the northwest. It is New
York. It is in Massachusetts. It is Florida and Texas.
If we talk to any of the transportation officials, they will tell us
that we are not well served having to repeatedly come to the floor with
a short-term extension. But I am going to argue in support of this 8-
month extension because, frankly, it is better to kick the can down the
road past the election. We have shown that we are not really capable of
doing that in an election year. With a new Congress, maybe with a new
administration, without the pre-election posturing, I think we will, in
fact, have a better piece of legislation. Were we to enact a flawed
piece of legislation, it would not just be a problem for today or
tomorrow; we would be crippling our transportation initiatives for the
entire 6-year period of the authorization, and it would establish an
artificially low standard for subsequent reauthorizations. We would be
severely penalizing transportation for a generation to come.
I hope that, in the course of the next 8 months, but particularly in
the course of the next 5 weeks, the American public takes the time to
pin down the politicians in the House, in the Senate, running for
President, about where they stand on transportation infrastructure.
This is the most important transportation piece of legislation for the
next 6 years. It is also the most important economic development
legislation, and done right, it is the most important environmental
legislation.
This should have been the easiest piece of legislation for this
Congress to pass. Sadly, we are seeing today that it has proven that we
are not up to the challenge. I hope we can take these next 8 months and
do better by the American public.
{time} 1045
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman and what his view is, but I come
from a State that has some complex transportation, from new to old
aging infrastructure, to mass transit, to ports, to motor carriers, to
dealing with buses and transit systems.
As I look at this, if we keep this moving forward by passing this
extender, we are going to keep those projects moving forward to protect
jobs. A ``no'' vote puts people out of work. It stops transit.
I have taken great care to listen to the transportation experts, and
they assure me of the following. We came here with such great spirit in
the House to pass this legislation, and it was bipartisan work. We
certainly lauded both the chairman of the full Committee of
Transportation and Infrastructure and the subcommittee chairs who put
together this complex bill and in a bipartisan fashion. Yes, there
certainly are differences of agreement to different aspects of what I
see in the other body just from public statements of negotiation. We
have also seen that the White House and Department of Transportation
has some of their opinions on this bill as well.
I accept the fact that we are getting into the election season, and
we are going to have all sorts of consumption going on back home as to
what this means. But what my transportation experts of New York say, as
well as talking to experts in this body, they tell me that if we do
this extension, it is going to maintain the spending in the 2005
authorization and 2004 funding levels and that basically no one will
lose any money at all in any of our States or, for the most part, in
our districts unless some of the Members do not have a relationship
with their State transportation people on some of the priorities that
they might be looking for in their State.
It is important to understand, for those who are listening to this
debate, that this maintains the spending of a multiyear plan in the
extension of 8 months, and it does in the 2005 authorization as well as
looking at the 2004 funding levels that are currently available.
My local folks in New York, the State commissioner and his people,
tell me that we will be able to continue in the continuity of a complex
transportation system by being able to count on this extension and the
funding to continue the multiyear projects.
So I do not quite understand the gentleman's aspect of where it
starts and stops maybe as he sees the view, because I have been assured
that we have continuity of transportation services in a multiyear
fashion by extending this.
Again, I must say to my colleagues, a ``yes'' vote today keeps those
projects moving forward and protects jobs and protects the work and
plans that are in our respective States, and a ``no'' vote just plain
stops that or puts people out of work.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. REYNOLDS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon for a question.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's notion
about having the funds flow.
Mr. REYNOLDS. I said I yield for a question. I do not want to hear
the gentleman's debate on my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am seeking not to debate. I was just
trying to establish a context for a question.
Is it not true that, in both the House and the Senate version of the
transportation reauthorization, there are a vast number of specific
projects, new starts, that are multiyear in nature and that cannot
proceed in the absence of their being reauthorized, and that this
extension has no bearing on those longer-term, complex, important
projects in the gentleman's State and in mine?
[[Page H7872]]
Mr. REYNOLDS. I thank the gentleman for his question, and what I
understand is as follows. Sure, I have projects; I think most Members
of this body have specific projects earmarked in our legislation. It is
my understanding that the other body would not consider earmarks that
we would like to begin in the 2005 project year. Therefore, the
compromise of extension, because we have had disagreements between the
two bodies and we also have the White House in consideration of getting
a final bill, was that we would take $2 billion of funding of Member-
earmarked items of 2004 and roll them into our respective States on the
existing formulas. That is what makes the States content to have that
money back into their aspect of continuing in the projects.
The gentleman's influence, as a member of the Oregon delegation,
might put an opportunity where the gentleman could talk to the DOT
commissioner and begin their projects based on some of the monies they
will receive.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me be clear to everybody here, because the gentleman from New
York keeps on talking about this in terms of a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote.
We are all going to vote for it because there is no other choice.
Nobody is opposing the extension here. What we are simply saying is
they have mismanaged this process.
He talks about jobs that could be maintained. Well, we want to not
only maintain jobs, we want to create them.
Let me repeat to him, according to the American Association of State
Highway Transportation Officials, 33 States say that a short-term
extension rather than enactment of a 6-year bill will mean $2.1 billion
in project delays and the loss of over 90,000 jobs. If we did our job
right in this House, then this would not be the case. There would be
more jobs coming.
I would remind the gentleman, again, I am pretty sure that one party,
one party, controls the House and controls the Senate and controls the
White House. Contrary to what the gentleman says, this is not about
finger-pointing to point out that you guys cannot get your act
together.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
October 1, 2003: What is important about that date? That is the date
that the last highway bill expired. Here we are, almost a year later,
legislation that sets the course of all spending on roads, bridges,
highways, mass transit in the United States of America has been in
suspended animation working under a 7-year-old law for the last 11
months.
I guess if the Republicans controlled things, things would not be
like that; that is the kind of thing we hear around here all the time.
They control the White House, the Department of Transportation, the
House and the Senate. The White House is low-balling the number and
underinvesting in America. They only want to spend $259 billion. They
want to take our gas tax money and spend it on other things instead of
transportation.
The House did a little better, $283 billion, not enough, but they did
better. But they do not want to confront the President in an election
year. We could roll them easily. It would be embarrassing, though, just
before the election for him to be against jobs and investment in
America and spending gas taxes on the purposes for which it was
collected. The Senate did a lot better yet, $318 billion.
Then, of course, there was the unanimous bipartisan vote of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, on which I serve, where
we voted unanimously for $379 billion, $120 billion more than the
President is willing to spend, because that is what the President's
Department of Transportation said is necessary to take care of the
problems in New York and other States. We need another $120 billion
over what the President's asking for to deal with those problems.
It is disingenuous to get up here and say, oh, if we follow these
lower numbers, nothing is being hurt. We are foregoing new starts. We
are foregoing new investments. We are foregoing additional investments
that the President's own Department of Transportation says is
necessary. Why? Why are we doing that? We collect gas taxes from each
and every American every time they fill up their car, a bunch of them,
and that money is supposed to be spent on roads, bridges and highways.
We have seen the potholes. I have got failing bridges in my district.
We could put hundreds of thousands of people to work tomorrow if we had
more investment and more spending.
I cannot understand why they will not spend our gas tax money to put
people to work and meet needed investment in our infrastructure. So I
stand here saying we should be doing more than just this continuing
resolution, obviously. We should have sometime in the last 11 months.
The Republicans should have been able to get their act together and
agree on a highway bill. That has not happened. Well, if we cannot do
that, at least let us put a little more money in there, put a few more
people back to work, begin to address some of these problems that are
out there, begin to take care of some of the new starts that New York
has asked for that cannot go forward under this legislation.
My colleagues cannot say, oh, the transportation experts in New York
say this is going to take care of all the problems. It is not. It is
not even beginning to address the backlog of problems of failing roads
and bridges.
Another interesting statistic from the President's own Department of
Transportation is that, for every $1 billion we spend on roads,
bridges, highways, mass transit, we create 47,500 jobs; not just
construction jobs, but those are good jobs and good wage jobs. And
guess what? They cannot be outsourced to another country. That is a
really good thing about those jobs, but what it also does is it spills
over into communities and small businesses. The suppliers, the
contractors, the equipment operators, they are all local. They are
locally based. It helps our local communities who need more jobs and
investment. It helps small businesses, 47,500 jobs.
So, that means by walking away from the higher numbers proposed by
the Senate, that is $318 billion, that we are foregoing $34 billion of
investment that is needed to repair our failing bridges, roads,
highways and our mass transit inadequacies, new starts in New York and
other States. I cannot do the math quite here, but 34 times 47 sounds
like a heck of a lot of jobs to me, somewhere around 1.5 million jobs.
This country could use another 1.5 million jobs. In fact, if the
President would sign a bill at that higher number, then he could say he
delivered on his promise of creating 2 million jobs during his
presidency. Right now, he is kind of short on that.
This is at best an absolutely minimal stopgap that is not meeting the
real needs of Americans, that is not putting people back to work, that
is not spending their gas tax money in the manner in which it was
intended when it was collected and extracted from them, when they
bought gas at the pump.
I would say we have apparently no alternative but to support this
inadequate level of funding, but the American people should be aware it
is inadequate. It does mean no new starts. It does mean that we are not
going to address a whole bunch of problems all around the country, and
we can do better.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is a well-known fact in the House that the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure is probably the largest of membership
in our great body. It amazes me when I look at the members of the
committee, that might share from the other side of the aisle, kind of
going back and forth between an extension and the 6-year bill, kind of
mixing it up.
I just want to make sure we have the record straight, although I have
said it so many times in this debate already. The extension does not
prejudice the 6-year bill. It actually keeps a continuity of funding
levels at the authorization of our budget resolution.
The gentleman is actually continuing, as previous speakers have, to
go back and forth between a simple extension that guarantees all States
their money and some planning purposes over the next 8 months versus
trying to get to a 6-year bill.
I am used to a situation where legislation does not come to the floor
as
[[Page H7873]]
fast as some Members would want, that there is finger-pointing. I also
acknowledge that we have disagreements between the other body, the
White House and this on getting a conclusion of a 6-year bill.
But the Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure has made sure, with his subcommittee chairmen, that we
have an 8-month extension that guarantees each State their money so
they can continue in their planning purposes. As I have said before, it
clearly says a ``yes'' vote today keeps those projects moving forward
and protects jobs. A ``no'' vote puts people out of work and brings
that construction to an end.
I also want to make sure that some of these alarmist accusations,
that there is clear, on-the-record information so that they do not get
caught up without a response. As the previous gentleman talked about
the fact of money going all over the place, this bill includes an
extension of the budgetary firewalls and spending guarantees for the
highway category and transit category. These firewalls and guarantees
protect the integrity of the Highway Trust Fund to ensure the highway
user-related fees are used exclusively for highway transit and highway
safety programs.
I want to just let America know that we extend those protections in
this extension of 8 months, just as it was in underlying legislation in
the past.
{time} 1100
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, as I look at this particular
road bill, the reauthorization, I think of comments made back home,
where it is called road kill. In essence, what is happening with this
legislation and the reauthorization, quite frankly our folks back home
will call it road kill; and let me explain why.
We have individuals this morning that got up in my district and
districts throughout this country and they have traveled to work at the
factory or at their workplace, and in many cases in my district, on
unsafe roads. So this legislation will provide, if enacted, as it
should have been, will provide a safe way for working moms and dads to
go to work and return to their families later that afternoon, and in
many cases working at low-wage jobs.
We have also heard that maybe we can pass this legislation in a lame
duck session. Well, that obviously is not going to happen. But I submit
to you that is what we have been doing the past year and a half: we
have been having a lame duck session. And quite frankly with the lame
duck session we have been having concerning transportation needs, we
have provided an avenue for many of our folks back home to be sitting
ducks, sitting ducks that unless we pass this legislation and fully
fund it, as many of us on this side of the Chamber have asked for, it
may bring about a situation where the American public and the jobs that
we have will bring about an economy that will create a dead duck
scenario.
It is my hope that we realize, as we engage in the next 8 months, and
I am sure that is what is going to happen, that for the American public
and the safety of the American public and the American workers, that we
pass an adequately funded reauthorization bill that will help build
roads to many of our rural areas; that will help the inner cities with
mass transit; and will bring about safe traveling as well as providing
an economic boost.
Many years ago, Mr. Speaker, when our interstate systems were built,
it helped bring about what we called ``just-in-time manufacturing.''
Small rural areas could in fact become the suppliers for the assembly
lines of American manufacturers. As a result of that, we were able to
move from small rural areas the products being built there, or that
portion of it, to the larger manufacturing companies and create jobs in
rural areas. We, in fact, by languishing and not fulfilling our
responsibilities are bringing about a situation and circumstance for
many of our workers and many of our families and our economy that will
not be able to compete should, say, China decide to do as we did in the
1950s and the 1960s.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I was listening carefully to the comments
of the gentleman, but I was at the point where I wondered if the
gentleman intends to vote for the extension or not to vote for the
extension, based on your remarks.
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say
to the gentleman from New York that my intention is to vote for a
reauthorization bill adequately funded. Unfortunately, we do not have
that option.
Mr. Speaker, my hope is that we do what is right and that we put
first the safety of the American public and pass the reauthorization
bill at the level it should be.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and
let me just conclude for our side here by saying that this debate is
not about whether or not we are going to support this extension. We are
all going to support it. That is not the issue.
What we are expressing here is a frustration that we do not have a 6-
year bill. And contrary to what the gentleman from New York says, most
transportation planners that I have talked to, and I am sure he has
talked to, if he has listened to them, would tell him that a 6-year
bill is better than an 8-month extension for this reason: that many
transportation programs require long-term planning. It is not a quick
one-time investment. With an 8-month extension there is not the
certainty of what happens after 8 months.
My point earlier was simply that this is another missed opportunity
by this leadership. The Republicans control the House, they control the
Senate, and they control the White House. Surely, surely they could
have worked out a deal. Surely they could have helped accomplish a 6-
year extension. That is what the frustration is on this side.
Our Governors and our mayors and our town managers and our city
planners are all looking for a long-term guarantee of funding, and they
are not going to get that. They are going to get an 8-month extension.
And, yes, that is better than nothing. We need to keep this funding
going. But the fact is they cannot plan long term; and as a result of
that, we are not going to create as many jobs. The future for some of
the economic development that we all hoped for that will come from some
of these projects will have to be put on hold, and I think that is a
shame.
So I want to commend the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young),
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar),
and all the Members who have worked hard in a bipartisan way. I only
wish that their spirit of cooperation would have translated to the
leadership of this House and the other body and the White House. We
should be doing so much better than this. We should be passing a 6-year
extension right now.
So I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule, and I urge them to vote
for the extension; and, hopefully, we will, sooner rather than later,
get a 6-year bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague said it well, we should vote for this rule
and then the underlying legislation. As I opened my remarks, I
commented that I understand it is the election season. So many of us
have to get up and try to say something for back home on whatever that
may be.
I have talked to planners in my years of service, and some planners I
know would like to have an exact fund for the entire length of their
career in planning. But the reality is that this bill is going to
provide an extension and continuity in both planning and money to our
respective States. My State, as I outlined earlier, has a complex
transportation network and understands that this extension keeps the
funding levels the same as it has been. As a matter of fact, the
opportunity of all States will have the same funding levels. So we have
continuity of our programmatic services and dollars to the States and
for them to also distribute as they see fit the monies that will come
in this 8-month extension.
[[Page H7874]]
It is not easy to formulate an agreement of an extension, and I laud
Chairman Young of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
and his subcommittee chairman in working with the other body to get a
compromise of extension that works so well for our States as we
continue this continuity of transportation projects and creating and
maintaining the jobs that these construction opportunities exist
through the transportation bill. But as we also look here, it is an
opportunity for us to continue to get an agreement that both bodies and
the White House will look to be a 6-year plan following the extension
that is here.
My colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), has
been clear. A ``yes'' vote today keeps the projects moving and keeps
and protects jobs. A ``no'' vote puts people out of work. The extension
will do the job and we can continue in having a multi-year plan of the
future based on the results of our actions today. So I call upon my
colleagues to support this rule and the underlying extension.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 811, I
call up the bill (H.R. 5183) 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, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). Pursuant to House
Resolution 811, the bill shall be considered as read for amendment:
The text of H.R. 5183 is as follows:
H.R. 5183
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Surface Transportation
Extension Act of 2004, Part V''.
SEC. 2. ADVANCES.
(a) In General.--
(1) Apportionment ratio.--Except as provided in paragraph
(2), the Secretary of Transportation shall apportion funds
made available under section 1101(l) of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 111; 118 Stat.
876), as amended by this section, to each State in the ratio
that--
(A) the State's total fiscal year 2004 obligation authority
for funds apportioned for the Federal-aid highway program;
bears to
(B) all States' total fiscal year 2004 obligation authority
for funds apportioned for the Federal-aid highway program.
(2) Exception.--The ratios determined under this subsection
shall be subject to the same adjustments as the adjustments
made under section 105(f) of title 23, United States Code.
(b) Programmatic Distributions.--
(1) Programs.--Of the funds to be apportioned to each State
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall ensure that the
State is apportioned an amount of the funds, determined under
paragraph (2), for the Interstate maintenance program, the
National Highway System program, the bridge program, the
surface transportation program, the congestion mitigation and
air quality improvement program, the recreational trails
program, the Appalachian development highway system program,
and the minimum guarantee.
(2) In general.--The amount that each State shall be
apportioned under this subsection for each item referred to
in paragraph (1) shall be determined by multiplying--
(A) the amount apportioned to the State under subsection
(a); by
(B) the ratio that--
(i) the amount of funds apportioned for the item to the
State for fiscal year 2004; bears to
(ii) the total of the amount of funds apportioned for the
items to the State for fiscal year 2004.
(3) Administration of funds.--Funds authorized by the
amendment made under subsection (d) shall be administered as
if the funds had been apportioned, allocated, deducted, or
set aside, as the case may be, under title 23, United States
Code; except that the deductions and set-asides in the
following sections of such title shall not apply to such
funds: sections 104(a)(1)(A), 104(a)(1)(B), 104(b)(1)(A),
104(d)(1), 104(d)(2), 104(f)(1), 104(h)(1), 118(c)(1),
140(b), 140(c), and 144(g)(1).
(4) Special rules for minimum guarantee.--In carrying out
the minimum guarantee under section 105(c) of title 23,
United States Code, with funds apportioned under this section
for the minimum guarantee, the $2,800,000,000 set forth in
paragraph (1) of such section 105(c) shall be treated as
being $1,866,666,667 and the aggregate of amounts apportioned
to the States under this section for the minimum guarantee
shall be treated, for purposes of such section 105(c), as
amounts made available under section 105 of such title.
(5) Extension of off-system bridge setaside.--Section
144(g)(3) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after ``2004'' the following: ``and in the period
of October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005,''.
(c) Repayment From Future Apportionments.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall reduce the amount that
would be apportioned, but for this section, to a State for
programs under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, for
fiscal year 2005, under a multiyear law reauthorizing the
Federal-aid highway program enacted after the date of
enactment of this Act by the amount that is apportioned to
each State under subsection (a) and section 5(c) for each
such program.
(2) Program category reconciliation.--The Secretary may
establish procedures under which funds apportioned under
subsection (a) for a program category for which funds are not
authorized under a law described in paragraph (1) may be
restored to the Federal-aid highway program.
(d) Authorization of Contract Authority.--Section 1101 of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat.
111-115; 117 Stat. 1118; 118 Stat. 876) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(l) Advance Authorization for Fiscal Year 2005.--
``(1) In general.--There shall be available from the
Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) to
carry out section 2(a) of the Surface Transportation
Extension Act of 2004, Part V $21,311,774,667 for the period
of October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005.
``(2) Special rule.--Funds apportioned under section 2(a)
of the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part V
shall be subject to a limitation on obligations for Federal-
aid highways and highway safety construction programs.
``(3) Contract authority.--Funds made available by this
subsection shall be available for obligation in the same
manner as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of
title 23, United States Code.''.
(e) Limitation on Obligations.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), upon enactment
of an Act making appropriations for the Department of
Transportation for fiscal year 2005 (other than an Act or
resolution making continuing appropriations), the Secretary
shall distribute \8/12\ of the obligation limitation for
Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs
provided by such Act according to the provisions of such Act.
(2) Exceptions.---
(A) Determination of amounts.--Any instruction in such Act
that would require the distribution or reservation of
obligation limitation prior to distributing the remainder of
the obligation limitation to the States shall be executed as
if the program, project, or activity for which obligation
limitation is so distributed or reserved was authorized at an
amount equivalent to the greater of--
(i) the amount authorized for such program, project, or
activity in this Act; or
(ii) \8/12\ of the amount provided for or limitation set on
such program, project, or activity in the Act making
appropriations for the Department of Transportation for
fiscal year 2005.
(B) Minimum guarantee.--Obligations for the period October
1, 2004, through May 31, 2005, shall not exceed the
obligation limitation distributed by this subsection, except
that this limitation shall not apply to $426,000,000 in
obligations for minimum guarantee for such period.
(3) Time period for obligations.--After May 31, 2005, no
funds shall be obligated for any Federal-aid highway program
project until the date of enactment of a multiyear law
reauthorizing the Federal-aid highway program enacted after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(4) Treatment of obligations.--Any obligation of obligation
authority distributed under this subsection shall be
considered to be an obligation for Federal-aid highways and
highway safety construction programs for fiscal year 2005 for
the purposes of any obligation limitation set in an Act
making appropriations for the Department of Transportation
for fiscal year 2005.
SEC. 3. TRANSFERS OF UNOBLIGATED APPORTIONMENTS.
(a) In General.--In addition to any other authority of a
State to transfer funds, for fiscal year 2005, a State may
transfer any funds apportioned to the State for any program
under section 104(b) (including amounts apportioned under
section 104(b)(3) or set aside, made available, or
suballocated under section 133(d)) or section 144 of title
23, United States Code, before, on, or after the date of
enactment of this Act, that are subject to any limitation on
obligations, and that are not obligated, to any other of
those programs.
(b) Treatment of Transferred Funds.--Any funds transferred
to another program under subsection (a) shall be subject to
the provisions of the program to which the funds are
transferred, except that funds transferred to a program under
section 133 (other than subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2)) of
title 23, United States Code, shall not be subject to section
133(d) of that title.
[[Page H7875]]
(c) Restoration of Apportionments.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing the Federal-aid
highway program enacted after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall restore any funds
that a State transferred under subsection (a) for any project
not eligible for the funds but for this section to the
program category from which the funds were transferred.
(2) Program category reconciliation.--The Secretary may
establish procedures under which funds transferred under
subsection (a) from a program category for which funds are
not authorized may be restored to the Federal-aid highway
program.
(3) Limitation on statutory construction.--No provision of
law, except a statute enacted after the date of enactment of
this Act that expressly limits the application of this
subsection, shall impair the authority of the Secretary to
restore funds pursuant to this subsection.
(d) Guidance.--The Secretary may issue guidance for use in
carrying out this section.
(e) Prohibition of Transfers.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, no funds may be transferred by a
State under subsection (a)--
(1) from amounts apportioned to the State for the
congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program;
and
(2) from amounts apportioned to the State for the surface
transportation program and that are subject to any of
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)(A)(i) of section 133(d) of title
23, United States Code.
SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.
(a) Authorization of Contract Authority.--There shall be
available from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass
Transit Account) for administrative expenses of the Federal-
aid highway program $234,682,667 for fiscal year 2005.
(b) Contract Authority.--Funds made available by this
section shall be available for obligation in the same manner
as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title
23, United States Code, and shall be subject to a limitation
on obligations for Federal-aid highways and highway safety
construction programs; except that such funds shall remain
available until expended.
SEC. 5. OTHER FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAMS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations Under Title I of
TEA21.--
(1) Federal lands highways.--
(A) Indian reservation roads.--Section 1101(a)(8)(A) of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat.
112; 118 Stat. 877) is amended--
(i) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``and $183,333,333 for the period of October 1,
2004, through May 31, 2005''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following: ``The minimum
amount made available for such period that the Secretary, in
cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall reserve
for Indian reservation road bridges under section 202(d)(4)
of title 23, United States Code, shall be $8,666,667 instead
of $13,000,000.''.
(B) Public lands highways.--Section 1101(a)(8)(B) of such
Act (112 Stat. 112; 118 Stat. 878) is amended by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``and
$164,000,000 for the period of October 1, 2004, through May
31, 2005''.
(C) Park roads and parkways.--Section 1101(a)(8)(C) of such
Act (112 Stat. 112; 118 Stat. 878) is amended by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``and
$110,000,000 for the period of October 1, 2004, through May
31, 2005''.
(D) Refuge roads.--Section 1101(a)(8)(D) of such Act (112
Stat. 112; 118 Stat. 878) is amended by inserting before the
period at the end the following: ``and $13,333,333 for the
period of October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005''.
(2) National corridor planning and development and
coordinated border infrastructure programs.--Section
1101(a)(9) of such Act (112 Stat. 112; 118 Stat. 878) is
amended by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``and $93,333,333 for the period of October 1,
2004, through May 31, 2005''.
(3) Construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal
facilities.--
(A) In general.--Section 1101(a)(10) of such Act (112 Stat.
113; 118 Stat. 878) is amended by inserting before the period
at the end the following: ``and $25,333,333 for the period of
October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005''.
(B) Set aside for alaska, new jersey, and washington.--To
carry out section 1064 of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 129 note;
105 Stat. 2005; 112 Stat. 185; 118 Stat. 878), of funds made
available by the amendment made by subparagraph (A)--
(i) $6,666,667 shall be available for section 1064(d)(2);
(ii) $3,333,333 shall be available for section 1064(d)(3);
and
(iii) $3,333,333 shall be available for section 1064(d)(4).
(4) National scenic byways program.--Section 1101(a)(11) of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat.
113; 118 Stat. 878) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' the last place it appears; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and $17,666,667 for the period of October 1,
2004, through May 31, 2005''.
(5) Value pricing pilot program.--Section 1101(a)(12) of
such Act (112 Stat. 113; 118 Stat. 878) is amended by
inserting before the period at the end the following: ``, and
$7,333,333 for the period of October 1, 2004, through May 31,
2005''.
(6) Highway use tax evasion projects.--Section 1101(a)(14)
of such Act (112 Stat. 113; 118 Stat. 878) is amended by
inserting before the period at the end the following: ``and
$3,333,333 for the period of October 1, 2004, through May 31,
2005''.
(7) Commonwealth of puerto rico highway program.--
(A) In general.--Section 1101(a)(15) of such Act (112 Stat.
113; 118 Stat. 879) is amended by inserting before the period
at the end the following: ``and $73,333,333 for the period of
October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 1214(r)(1) of such Act
(112 Stat. 209; 117 Stat. 1114) is amended by striking
``2004'' and inserting ``2005''.
(8) Safety grants.--Section 1212(i)(1)(D) of such Act (23
U.S.C. 402 note; 112 Stat. 196; 112 Stat. 840; 118 Stat. 879)
is amended by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``and $333,333 for the period of October 1, 2004,
through May 31, 2005''.
(9) Transportation and community and system preservation
pilot program.--Section 1221(e)(1) of such Act (23 U.S.C. 101
note; 112 Stat. 223; 118 Stat. 879) is amended by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``and $16,666,667
for the period of October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005''.
(10) Transportation infrastructure finance and
innovation.--Section 188 of title 23, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1)--
(i) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(ii) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) $86,666,667 for the period of October 1, 2004,
through May 31, 2005.'';
(B) in subsection (a)(2) by inserting after ``2004'' the
following: ``and $1,333,333 for the period of October 1,
2004, through May 31, 2005''; and
(C) in subsection (c)--
(i) by striking ``2004'' and inserting ``2005''; and
(ii) by striking the period at the end of the table and
inserting the following:
``2005............................................$1,733,333,333.''.
(11) National Scenic Byways Clearinghouse.--Section
1215(b)(3) of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st
Century (112 Stat. 210) is amended by inserting before the
period at the end ``and $1,000,000 for the period of October
1, 2004, through May 31, 2005''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations Under Title V of
TEA21.--
(1) Surface transportation research.--Section 5001(a)(1) of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat.
419; 118 Stat. 879) is amended--
(A) by striking ``2003, and'' and inserting ``2003,''; and
(B) by inserting after ``2004'' the following: ``, and
$68,666,667 for the period of October 1, 2004, through May
31, 2005''.
(2) Technology deployment program.--Section 5001(a)(2) of
such Act (112 Stat. 419; 118 Stat. 879) is amended--
(A) by striking ``2003, and'' and inserting ``2003,''; and
(B) by inserting after ``2004'' the following: ``, and
$33,333,333 for the period of October 1, 2004, through May
31, 2005''.
(3) Training and education.--Section 5001(a)(3) of such Act
(112 Stat. 420; 118 Stat. 879) is amended--
(A) by striking ``2003, and'' and inserting ``2003,''; and
(B) by inserting after ``2004'' the following: ``, and
$13,333,333 for the period of October 1, 2004, through May
31, 2005''.
(4) Bureau of transportation statistics.--Section
5001(a)(4) of such Act (112 Stat. 420; 118 Stat. 879) is
amended by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and $20,666,667 for the period of October 1,
2004, through May 31, 2005''.
(5) ITS standards, research, operational tests, and
development.--Section 5001(a)(5) of such Act (112 Stat. 420;
118 Stat. 879) is amended--
(A) by striking ``2003, and'' and inserting ``2003,''; and
(B) by inserting after ``2004'' the following: ``, and
$73,333,333 for the period of October 1, 2004, through May
31, 2005''.
(6) ITS deployment.--Section 5001(a)(6) of such Act (112
Stat. 420; 118 Stat. 880) is amended--
(A) by striking ``2003, and'' and inserting ``2003,''; and
(B) by inserting after ``2004'' the following: ``, and
$81,333,333 for the period of October 1, 2004, through May
31, 2005''.
(7) University transportation research.--Section 5001(a)(7)
of such Act (112 Stat. 420; 118 Stat. 880) is amended--
(A) by striking ``2003, and'' and inserting ``2003,''; and
(B) by inserting after ``2004'' the following: ``, and
$17,666,667 for the period of October 1, 2004, through May
31, 2005''.
(c) Metropolitan Planning.--
(1) Authorization of contract authority.--There shall be
available from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass
Transit Account) to carry out section 134 of title 23, United
States Code, $145,000,000 for the period of October 1, 2004,
through May 31, 2005.
(2) Distribution of funds.--The Secretary shall distribute
funds made available by this subsection to the States in
accordance with
[[Page H7876]]
section 104(f)(2) of title 23, United States Code.
(3) Contract authority.--Funds made available by this
subsection shall be available for obligation in the same
manner as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of
title 23, United States Code, and shall be subject to a
limitation on obligations for Federal-aid highways and
highway safety construction programs.
(d) Territories.--Section 1101(d)(1) of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 111-115; 117 Stat.
1116; 118 Stat. 880) is amended by inserting after ``2004''
the following: ``and $24,266,667 for the period of October 1,
2004, through May 31, 2005''.
(e) Alaska Highway.--Section 1101(e)(1) of such Act (117
Stat. 1116; 118 Stat. 880) is amended by inserting after
``2004'' the following: ``and $12,533,333 for the period of
October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005''.
(f) Operation Lifesaver.--Section 1101(f)(1) of such Act
(117 Stat. 1117; 118 Stat. 880) is amended by inserting after
``2004'' the following: ``and $333,333 for the period of
October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005''.
(g) Bridge Discretionary.--Section 1101(g)(1) of such Act
(117 Stat. 1117; 118 Stat. 880) is amended by inserting after
``2004'' the following: ``and $66,666,667 for the period of
October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005''.
(h) Interstate Maintenance.--Section 1101(h)(1) of such Act
(117 Stat. 1117; 118 Stat. 880) is amended by inserting after
``2004'' the following: ``and $66,666,667 for the period of
October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005''.
(i) Recreational Trails Administrative Costs.--Section
1101(i)(1) of such Act (117 Stat. 1117; 118 Stat. 880) is
amended by inserting after ``2004'' the following: ``and
$500,000 for the period of October 1, 2004, through May 31,
2005''.
(j) Railway-Highway Crossing Hazard Elimination in High
Speed Rail Corridors.--Section 1101(j)(1) of such Act (117
Stat. 1118; 118 Stat. 881) is amended--
(1) by inserting before ``; except'' the following: ``and
$3,500,000 for the period of October 1, 2004, through May 31,
2005''; and
(2) by inserting before ``for eligible'' the following:
``and not less than $166,667 instead of $250,000 shall be
available for the period of October 1, 2004, through May 31,
2005,''.
(k) Nondiscrimination.--Section 1101(k) of such Act (117
Stat. 1118; 118 Stat. 881) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by inserting after ``2004'' the
following: ``and $6,666,667 for the period of October 1,
2004, through May 31, 2005''; and
(2) in paragraph (2) by inserting after ``2004'' the
following: ``and $6,666,667 for the period of October 1,
2004, through May 31, 2005''.
(l) Administration of Funds.--Funds authorized by the
amendments made by this section shall be administered as if
the funds had been apportioned, allocated, deducted, or set
aside, as the case may be, under title 23, United States
Code, except that the deductions under sections 104(a)(1)(A)
and 104(a)(1)(B) of such title shall not apply to funds made
available by the amendment made by subsection (a)(1) of this
section.
(m) Reduction of Allocated Programs.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall reduce the amount that would be made
available, but for this section, for fiscal year 2005 for
allocation under a program, that is continued both by a
multiyear law reauthorizing such program enacted after the
date of enactment of this Act and by this section, by the
amount made available for such program by this section.
(n) Program Category Reconciliation.--The Secretary may
establish procedures under which funds allocated under this
section for fiscal year 2005 for a program category for which
funds are not authorized for fiscal year 2005 under a
multiyear law reauthorizing the Federal-aid highway program
enacted after the date of enactment of this Act may be
restored to the Federal-aid highway program.
SEC. 6. EXTENSION OF HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS.
(a) Chapter 1 Highway Safety Programs.--
(1) Seat belt safety incentive grants.--Section 157 of
title 23, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(3) by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2003'';
(B) in subsection (a)(8)(B) by striking ``2002'' and
inserting ``2003'';
(C) in subsection (b) by striking ``2003'' and inserting
``2005'';
(D) in subsection (c)(1) by striking ``2003'' and inserting
``2004'';
(E) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ``2003'' and inserting
``2004'';
(F) in subsection (f)(4) by striking ``2003'' and inserting
``2004'';
(G) in subsection (g)(1)--
(i) by striking ``and''; and
(ii) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and $74,666,667 for the period of October 1,
2004, through May 31, 2005'';
(H) in the heading to subsection (g)(3)(B) by striking
``2004'' and inserting ``2005''; and
(I) in subsection (g)(3)(B) by striking ``2004'' and
inserting ``2005''.
(2) Prevention of intoxicated driver incentive grants.--
Section 163(e)(1) of such title is amended--
(A) by striking ``and''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and $73,333,333 for the period of October 1,
2004, through May 31, 2005''.
(b) Chapter 4 Highway Safety Programs.--Section 2009(a)(1)
of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112
Stat. 337; 118 Stat. 886) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and $110,000,000 for the period of October 1,
2004, through May 31, 2005''.
(c) Highway Safety Research and Development.--Section
2009(a)(2) of such Act (112 Stat. 337; 118 Stat. 886) is
amended by inserting after ``2004'' the following: ``, and
$48,000,000 for the period of October 1, 2004, through May
31, 2005''.
(d) Occupant Protection Incentive Grants.--Section
2009(a)(3) of such Act (112 Stat. 337; 118 Stat. 886) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' the last place it appears; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and $13,333,333 for the period of October 1,
2004, through May 31, 2005''.
(e) Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive
Grants.--
(1) Extension of program.--Section 410 of title 23, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(3) by striking ``7'' and inserting
``8''; and
(B) in subsection (a)(4)(C) by striking ``and seventh'' and
inserting ``, seventh, and eighth''.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 2009(a)(4) of
such Act (112 Stat. 337; 118 Stat. 886) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' the last place it appears; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and $26,666,667 for the period of October 1,
2004, through May 31, 2005''.
(f) National Driver Register.--Section 2009(a)(6) of such
Act (112 Stat. 338; 118 Stat. 886) is amended by inserting
after ``2004'' the following: ``, and $2,400,000 for the
period of October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005''.
(g) Allocations.--Section 2009(b) of such Act (112 Stat.
338) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``2004'' and inserting
``2005''; and
(2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``2004'' and inserting
``2005''.
(h) Applicability of Title 23.--Section 2009(c) of such Act
(112 Stat. 338) is amended by striking ``2004'' and inserting
``2005''.
SEC. 7. EXTENSION OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
PROGRAM.
(a) Administrative Expenses.--
(1) In general.--There shall be available from the Highway
Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) for the
Secretary of Transportation to pay administrative expenses of
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration $160,552,536
for the period of October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005.
(2) Use of funds.--Funds authorized by this subsection may
be used for personnel costs; administrative infrastructure;
rent; information technology; and programs for research and
technology, regulatory development, and other operating
expenses and similar matters. Such funds available may also
be used to make grants to, or enter into contracts with,
States, local governments, or other persons for
implementation of the Commercial Driver's License Improvement
Grants and the Border Enforcement Grants programs.
(b) Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program.--Section
31104(a) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(8) Not more than $112,512,329 for the period of October
1, 2004, through May 31, 2005.''.
(c) Information Systems and Commercial Driver's License
Grants.--
(1) Authorization of appropriation.--Section 31107(a) of
such title is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) $13,315,068 for the period of October 1, 2004 through
May 31, 2005.''.
(2) Emergency cdl grants.--From amounts made available by
section 31107(a) of title 49, United States Code, for the
period of October 1, 2004 through May 31, 2005, the Secretary
of Transportation may make grants of up to $665,753 to a
State whose commercial driver's license program may fail to
meet the compliance requirements of section 31311(a) of such
title.
(d) Crash Causation Study.--There shall be available from
the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account)
for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to
continue the crash causation study required by section 224 of
the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (49 U.S.C.
31100 note; 113 Stat. 1770-1771), $665,753 for the period of
October 1, 2004 through May 31, 2005.
(e) Contract Authority.--Funds made available by this
section shall be available for obligation in the same manner
as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title
23, United States Code.
(f) Rule Stay.--The hours-of-service regulations applicable
to property-carrying commercial drivers contained in the
Final Rule published on April 28, 2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 22456-
22517), as amended on September 30, 2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 56208-
56212), and made applicable to motor carriers and drivers on
January 4, 2004, shall be in effect until the earlier of--
(1) the effective date of a new final rule addressing the
issues raised by the July 16, 2004, decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in
Public Citizen, et al. v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (No. 03-1165); or
[[Page H7877]]
(2) September 30, 2005.
SEC. 8. EXTENSION OF FEDERAL TRANSIT PROGRAMS.
(a) Allocating Amounts.--Section 5309(m) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of paragraph
(1) by inserting ``and for the period of October 1, 2004,
through May 31, 2005'' after ``2004'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(B) by inserting after clause (ii) the
following:
``(iii) October 1, 2004 through may 31, 2005.--Of the
amounts made available under paragraph (1)(B), $6,933,333
shall be available for the period of October 1, 2004, through
May 31, 2005, for capital projects described in clause
(i).'';
(3) in paragraph (3)(B) by inserting after ``2004'' the
following: ``(and $2,000,000 shall be available for the
period October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005)''; and
(4) in paragraph (3)(C) by inserting after ``2004)'' the
following: ``, and $33,333,333 shall be available for the
period October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005,''.
(b) Apportionment of Appropriations for Fixed Guideway
Modernization.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
determine the amount that each urbanized area is to be
apportioned for fixed guideway modernization under section
5337 of title 49, United States Code, on a pro rata basis to
reflect the partial fiscal year 2005 funding made available
by sections 5338(b)(2)(A)(vii) and 5338(b)(2)(B)(vii) of such
title.
(c) Formula Grants Authorizations.--Section 5338(a) of such
title is amended--
(1) in the heading to paragraph (2) by inserting ``and for
the period of october 1, 2004, through may 31, 2005'' after
``2004'';
(2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraphs (2)(A)(v)
and (2)(B)(v);
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraphs
(2)(A)(vi) and (2)(B)(vi) and inserting ``; and'';
(4) by adding at the end of paragraph (2)(A) the following:
``(vii) $2,201,760,000 for the period of October 1, 2004,
through May 31, 2005.'';
(5) by adding at the end in paragraph (2)(B) the following:
``(vii) $550,440,000 for the period of October 1, 2004,
through May 31, 2005.''; and
(6) in paragraph (2)(C) by striking ``2003'' and inserting
the following: ``2005 (other than for the period of October
1, 2004, through May 31, 2005)''.
(d) Allocation of Formula Grant Funds for October 1, 2004,
Through May 31, 2005.--Of the aggregate of amounts made
available by and appropriated under section 5338(a)(2) of
title 49, United States Code, for the period of October 1,
2004, through May 31, 2005--
(1) $3,233,300 shall be available to the Alaska Railroad
for improvements to its passenger operations under section
5307 of such title;
(2) $33,333,333 shall be available for clean fuels formula
grants under section 5308 of such title;
(3) $65,064,001 shall be available to provide
transportation services to elderly individuals and
individuals with disabilities under section 5310 of such
title;
(4) $172,690,702 shall be available to provide financial
assistance for other than urbanized areas under section 5311
of such title;
(5) $4,633,333 shall be available to provide financial
assistance in accordance with section 3038(g) of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; and
(6) $2,473,245,331 shall be available to provide financial
assistance for urbanized areas under section 5307 of such
title.
(e) Capital Program Authorizations.--Section 5338(b) of
such title is amended--
(1) in the heading to paragraph (2) by inserting ``and for
the period of october 1, 2004, through may 31, 2005'' after
``2004'';
(2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraphs (2)(A)(v)
and (2)(B)(v);
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraphs
(2)(A)(vi) and (2)(B)(vi) and inserting ``; and'';
(4) by adding at the end of paragraph (2)(A) the following:
``(vii) $1,740,960,000 for the period of October 1, 2004,
through May 31, 2005.''; and
(5) by adding at the end of paragraph (2)(B) the following:
``(vii) $435,240,000 for the period of October 1, 2004,
through May 31, 2005.''.
(f) Planning Authorizations and Allocations.--Section
5338(c) is amended--
(1) in the heading to paragraph (2) by inserting ``and for
the period of october 1, 2004, through may 31, 2005'' after
``2004'';
(2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraphs (2)(A)(v)
and (2)(B)(v);
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraphs
(2)(A)(vi) and (2)(B)(vi) and inserting ``; and'';
(4) by adding at the end of paragraph (2)(A) the following:
``(vii) $41,813,334 for the period of October 1, 2004,
through May 31, 2005.'';
(5) by adding at the end of paragraph (2)(B) the following:
``(vii) $10,453,333 for the period of October 1, 2004,
through May 31, 2005.''; and
(6) in paragraph (2)(C) by inserting ``or any portion of a
fiscal year'' after ``fiscal year''.
(g) Research Authorizations.--Section 5338(d) of such title
is amended--
(1) in the heading to paragraph (2) by inserting ``and for
the period of october 1, 2004, through may 31, 2005'' after
``2004'';
(2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraphs (2)(A)(v)
and (2)(B)(v);
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraphs
(2)(A)(vi) and (2)(B)(vi) and inserting ``; and'';
(4) by adding at the end of paragraph (2)(A) the following:
``(vii) $28,266,667 for the period of October 1, 2004,
through May 31, 2005.'';
(5) by adding at the end of paragraph (2)(B) the following:
``(vii) $7,066,667 for the period of October 1, 2004,
through May 31, 2005.''; and
(6) in paragraph (2)(C) by inserting after ``a fiscal
year'' the following: ``(other than for the period of October
1, 2004, through May 31, 2005)''.
(h) Allocation of Research Funds for October 1, 2004,
Through May 31, 2005.--Of the funds made available by or
appropriated under section 5338(d)(2) of title 49, United
States Code, for the period of October 1, 2004, through May
31, 2005--
(1) not less than $3,500,000 shall be available for
providing rural transportation assistance under section
5311(b)(2) of such title;
(2) not less than $5,500,000 shall be available for
carrying out transit cooperative research programs under
section 5313(a) of such title;
(3) not less than $2,666,667 shall be available to carry
out programs under the National Transit Institute under
section 5315 of such title, including not more than $666,667
shall be available to carry out section 5315(a)(16) of such
title; and
(4) any amounts not made available under paragraphs (1)
through (3) shall be available for carrying out national
planning and research programs under sections 5311(b)(2),
5312, 5313(a), 5314, and 5322 of such title.
(i) University Transportation Research Authorizations.--
Section 5338(e) of such title is amended--
(1) in the heading to paragraph (2) by inserting ``and for
the period of october 1, 2004, through may 31, 2005'' after
``2004'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(A) by inserting after ``2004'' the
following: ``and $3,200,000 for the period of October 1,
2004, through May 31, 2005'';
(3) in paragraph (2)(B) by inserting after ``2004'' the
following: ``and $800,000 for the period of October 1, 2004,
through May 31, 2005''; and
(4) in paragraphs (2)(C)(i) and (2)(C)(iii) by inserting
after ``fiscal year'' the following: ``(other than for the
period of October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005)''.
(j) Allocation of University Transportation Research
Funds.--
(1) In general.--Of the amounts made available under
section 5338(e)(2)(A) of title 49, United States Code, for
the period October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005--
(A) $1,333,333 shall be available for the center identified
in section 5505(j)(4)(A) of such title; and
(B) $1,333,333 shall be available for the center identified
in section 5505(j)(4)(F) of such title.
(2) Training and curriculum development.--Notwithstanding
section 5338(e)(2) of such title, any amounts made available
under such section for the period October 1, 2004, through
May 31, 2005, that remain after distribution under paragraph
(1), shall be available for the purposes identified in
section 3015(d) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (112 Stat. 857).
(3) Conforming amendment.--Section 3015(d)(2) of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat.
857; 118 Stat. 884) is amended by inserting ``or in the
period October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005'' after
``2004''.
(k) Administration Authorizations.--Section 5338(f) of such
title is amended--
(1) in the heading to paragraph (2) by inserting ``and for
the period of october 1, 2004, through may 31, 2005'' after
``2004'';
(2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraphs (2)(A)(v)
and (2)(B)(v);
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraphs
(2)(A)(vi) and (2)(B)(vi) and inserting ``; and'';
(4) by adding at the end of paragraph (2)(A) the following:
``(vii) $41,600,000 for the period of October 1, 2004,
through May 31, 2005.''; and
(5) by adding at the end of paragraph (2)(B) the following:
``(vii) $10,400,000 for the period of October 1, 2004,
through May 31, 2005.''.
(l) Job Access and Reverse Commute Program.--Section
3037(l) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(49 U.S.C. 5309 note; 112 Stat. 391-392; 118 Stat. 884) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraphs (1)(A)(v)
and (1)(B)(v);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraphs
(1)(A)(vi) and (1)(B)(vi) and inserting ``; and'';
(3) by adding at the end of paragraph (1)(A) the following:
``(vii) $80,000,000 for the period of October 1, 2004,
through May 31, 2005.'';
(4) by adding at the end of paragraph (1)(B) the following:
``(vii) $20,000,000 for the period of October 1, 2004,
through May 31, 2005.''; and
(5) by inserting before the period at the end of paragraph
(2) the following: ``; except that in the period of October
1, 2004, through May 31, 2005, not more than $6,666,667 shall
be used for such projects''.
(m) Rural Transportation Accessibility Incentive Program.--
Section 3038(g) of such Act (49 U.S.C. 5310 note; 112 Stat.
393; 118 Stat. 885) is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of paragraph (1) the following:
``(G) $3,500,000 for the period of October 1, 2004, through
May 31, 2005.''; and
[[Page H7878]]
(2) in paragraph (2) by inserting after ``2004'' the
following: ``(and $1,133,333 shall be available for the
period of October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005)''.
(n) Urbanized Area Formula Grants.--Section 5307(b) of
title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the heading to paragraph (2) by inserting ``and for
the period of october 1, 2004, through may 31, 2005'' after
``2004''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)(A) by inserting ``and for the period
of October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005'' after ``2004,''.
(o) Obligation Ceiling.--Section 3040 of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 394; 118 Stat.
885) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) $5,172,000,000 for the period of October 1, 2004,
through May 31, 2005.''.
(p) Fuel Cell Bus and Bus Facilities Program.--Section
3015(b) of such Act (112 Stat. 361; 118 Stat. 885) is amended
by inserting ``(or, in the case of the period of October 1,
2004, through May 31, 2005, $3,233,333)'' after
``$4,850,000''.
(q) Advanced Technology Pilot Project.--Section 3015(c)(2)
of such Act (49 U.S.C. 322 note; 112 Stat. 361; 118 Stat.
885) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``and for the period of October 1, 2004,
through May 31, 2005,'' after ``2004,''; and
(2) by inserting ``and $3,333,333 for such period'' after
``$5,000,000 per fiscal year''.
(r) Projects for New Fixed Guideway Systems and Extensions
to Existing Systems.--Section 3030 of such Act (112 Stat.
373-381; 118 Stat. 885) is amended--
(1) in subsections (a) and (b) by inserting ``and for the
period of October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005,'' after
``2004''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(1) by inserting ``and for the period
of October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005'' after ``2004''.
(s) New Jersey Urban Core Project.--Subparagraphs (A), (B),
and (C) of section 3031(a)(3) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2122; 112
Stat. 379; 118 Stat. 885) are amended by inserting ``and for
the period of October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005,'' after
``2004,''.
(t) Treatment of Funds.--Amounts made available under the
amendments made by this section shall be treated for purposes
of section 1101(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (23 U.S.C. 101 note) as amounts made available
for programs under title III of such Act.
(u) Local Share.--Section 3011(a) of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 5307 note; 118
Stat. 637; 118 Stat. 708; 118 Stat. 886) is amended by
inserting ``and for the period of October 1, 2004, through
May 31, 2005'' after ``2004''.
SEC. 9. SPORT FISHING AND BOATING SAFETY.
(a) Funding for National Outreach and Communications
Program.--Section 4(c) of the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777c(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
(2) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
paragraph (6); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) $6,666,664 for the period of October 1, 2004, through
May 31, 2005;''.
(b) Clean Vessel Act Funding.--Section 4(b) of such Act (16
U.S.C. 777c(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4) by striking the paragraph heading and
inserting ``Fiscal year 2004'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) First 8 months of fiscal year 2005.--For the period
of October 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005, of the balance of
each annual appropriation remaining after making the
distribution under subsection (a), an amount equal to
$54,666,664, reduced by 82 percent of the amount appropriated
for that fiscal year from the Boat Safety Account of the
Aquatic Resources Trust Fund established by section 9504 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to carry out the purposes
of section 13106(a) of title 46, United States Code, shall be
used as follows:
``(A) $6,666,664 shall be available to the Secretary of the
Interior for 3 fiscal years for obligation for qualified
projects under section 5604(c) of the Clean Vessel Act of
1992 (33 U.S.C. 1322 note).
``(B) $5,333,334 shall be available to the Secretary of the
Interior for 3 fiscal years for obligation for qualified
projects under section 7404(d) of the Sportfishing and
Boating Safety Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 777g-1(d)).
``(C) The balance remaining after the application of
subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall be transferred to the
Secretary of Transportation and shall be expended for State
recreational boating safety programs under section 13106 of
title 46, United States Code.''.
(c) Boat Safety Funds.--Section 13106(c) of title 46,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(c)(1) Of the amount transferred to the Secretary of
Transportation under paragraph (5)(C) of section 4(b) of the
Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C.
777c(b)), $3,333,336 is available to the Secretary for
payment of expenses of the Coast Guard for personnel and
activities directly related to coordinating and carrying out
the national recreational boating safety program under this
title, of which $1,333,336 shall be available to the
Secretary only to ensure compliance with chapter 43 of this
title.
``(2) No funds available to the Secretary under this
subsection may be used to replace funding traditionally
provided through general appropriations, nor for any purposes
except those purposes authorized by this section.
``(3) Amounts made available by this subsection shall
remain available until expended.
``(4) The Secretary shall publish annually in the Federal
Register a detailed accounting of the projects, programs, and
activities funded under this subsection.''.
SEC. 10. BUDGET LIMITATIONS.
(a) Adjustments to Annualized Discretionary Spending
Limits.--In the matter that precedes subparagraph (A) of
section 251(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, strike ``through 2002''.
(b) Discretionary Spending Limits.--Section 251(c) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is
amended as follows:
(1) Strike paragraphs (1) through (7) and redesignate
paragraph (8) (which relates to fiscal year 2005) as
paragraph (1) and in such redesignated paragraph strike ``(1)
with respect to fiscal year 2005'', redesignate the remaining
matter as subparagraph (C), and before such redesignated
matter insert the following:
``(1) with respect to fiscal year 2005--
``(A) for the highway category: $31,113,000,000 in outlays;
``(B) for the mass transit category: $1,453,000,000 in new
budget authority and $6,535,000,000 in outlays; and''.
(2) Redesignate paragraphs (9) through (16) as paragraphs
(2) through (9).
(c) Category Defined.--Section 250(c)(4) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B) by inserting after ``Century'' the
following: ``and the Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2004, Part V''; and
(2) in subparagraph (C)--
(A) by inserting after ``Century'' the first place it
appears the following: ``and the Surface Transportation
Extension Act of 2004, Part V''; and
(B) by striking ``that Act'' and inserting ``those Acts''.
(d) Conformance With the Concurrent Resolution on the
Budget for Fiscal Year 2005.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, all adjustments made pursuant to section
110(a)(2) of title 23, United States Code, to sums authorized
to be appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund (other than
the Mass Transit Account) to carry out each of the Federal-
aid highway and highway safety construction programs (other
than emergency relief) in fiscal year 2005 shall be deemed to
be zero.
(e) Sense of Congress on Adjustment to Align Highway
Spending With Revenues.--It is the sense of Congress that, in
any multiyear reauthorization of the Federal-aid highway
program, the alignment of highway spending with revenues
under section 251(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 should be restructured
to minimize year-to-year fluctuations in highway spending
levels and to ensure the uniform enforcement of such levels.
(f) Sense of Congress on Fully Guaranteed Funding.--It is
the sense of Congress--
(1) in any multiyear law reauthorizing of the Federal-aid
highway program enacted after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the level of obligation limitations for fiscal year
2005 under the highway category and the mass transit category
in section 8103 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (2 U.S.C. 901 note), as amended and extended, should
equal the obligation limitations for such categories
authorized in such multiyear law;
(2) the highway account category obligation limitation
level for fiscal year 2005 should be equal to the sum of the
Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Safety
Administration, and Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration obligation limitations for fiscal year 2005 in
such multiyear law; and
(3) the mass transit category obligation limitation level
for fiscal year 2005 should be equal to the sum of budget
authority and obligation limitation authorizations for
Federal Transit Administration programs for fiscal year 2005
in such multiyear reauthorization.
SEC. 11. LEVEL OF OBLIGATION LIMITATIONS.
(a) Highway Category.--Section 8103(a) of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (2 U.S.C. 901
note; 112 Stat. 492; 117 Stat. 1128) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) for fiscal year 2005, $35,392,000,000.''.
(b) Mass Transit Category.--Section 8103(b) of such Act (2
U.S.C. 901 note; 112 Stat. 492; 117 Stat. 1128) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
[[Page H7879]]
``(7) for fiscal year 2005, $7,265,000,000.''.
(c) Treatment of Funds.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, funds made available under this Act,
including the amendments made by this Act, shall be deemed to
be zero for the purposes of section 110 of the title 23,
United States Code.
SEC. 12. EXTENSION OF HIGHWAY PROGRAMS THROUGH END OF FISCAL
YEAR 2004.
(a) Advances.--Section 2(a) of the Surface Transportation
Extension Act of 2003 (23 U.S.C. 104 note; 117 Stat. 1110;
118 Stat. 876) is amended by striking ``and the Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part IV'' and inserting
``the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part IV,
and the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part
V''.
(b) Authorization of Contract Authority.--Section
1101(c)(1) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (117 Stat. 1111; 118 Stat. 876) is amended by
striking ``the period of October 1, 2003, through September
24,'' and inserting ``fiscal year''.
(c) Limitation on Obligations.--Section 2(e) of the Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2003 (117 Stat. 1111; 118
Stat. 478; 118 Stat. 876) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (1) through (4) and inserting:
``(1) Distribution of obligation authority.--For the fiscal
year 2004, the Secretary shall distribute the obligation
limitation made available for Federal-aid highways and
highway safety construction programs under the heading
`Federal-aid highways' in the Transportation, Treasury, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004 (division F of
Public Law 108-199; 118 Stat. 291; 118 Stat. 1013), in
accordance with section 110 of such Act.''; and
(2) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (2).
(d) Period of Availability.--Obligation authority made
available for fiscal year 2004 under section 2 of the Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2003 as a result of the
amendments made by this section, that is in addition to
obligation authority previously made available for fiscal
year 2004 under section 2 of such Act (117 Stat. 1110; 118
Stat. 478; 118 Stat. 627; 118 Stat. 698; 118 Stat. 876),
shall remain available for obligation during fiscal years
2004 and 2005, or for additional fiscal years if so made
available in a law enacted before the date of enactment of
this Act.
(e) Payment from Future Apportionments.--The Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2003 (117 Stat. 1110) is
amended--
(1) by striking section 2(c) (117 Stat. 1111; 118 Stat.
877);
(2) by striking section 3(c)(1) (117 Stat. 1112) and
inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of the Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2004, Part V, the Secretary of Transportation shall restore
any funds that a State transferred under subsection (a).'';
and
(3) by striking section 5(n) (117 Stat. 1119; 118 Stat.
483; 118 Stat. 632; 118 Stat. 703; 118 Stat. 881).
(f) Supplemental Minimum Guarantee.--
(1) General rule.--For fiscal year 2004, the Secretary
shall allocate among the States amounts sufficient to ensure
that each State's percentage of the total apportionments for
such fiscal year pursuant to sections 2(a) and 5(c) of the
Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2003 and amounts
apportioned under this section shall equal the percentage
listed for each State in section 105(b) of title 23, United
States Code. The shares in such section shall be adjusted in
accordance with section 105(f) of such title. The minimum
amount allocated to a State under this subsection for the
fiscal year shall be $1,000,000.
(2) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated
out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit
Account) such sums as may be necessary to carry out this
subsection for fiscal year 2004.
(3) Administration of funds.--Funds apportioned to a State
under this subsection--
(A) shall be available for obligation in the same manner as
if such funds were apportioned to the State under chapter 1
of title 23, United States Code;
(B) shall be combined with funds apportioned to the State
for the minimum guarantee program under section 2(a) of the
Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2003; and
(C) shall be administered in the same manner as funds
apportioned under section 105 of such title.
(4) Obligation limitation.--Funds apportioned under this
subsection shall be subject to any limitation on obligations
for Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction
programs.
(g) Calculation of Estimated Trust Fund Contributions.--The
amendment made by section 13(c) of this Act shall have no
effect on the estimates of tax payments attributable to
highway users in each State paid into the Highway Trust Fund
for purposes of apportioning funds to States in fiscal year
2004 until enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing surface
transportation programs.
SEC. 13. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF TRUST FUNDS
FOR OBLIGATIONS UNDER TEA-21.
(a) Highway Trust Fund.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 9503(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(A) in the matter before subparagraph (A), by striking
``October 1, 2004'' and inserting ``June 1, 2005'',
(B) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (I),
(C) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (J)
and inserting ``, or'',
(D) by inserting after subparagraph (J) the following new
subparagraph:
``(K) authorized to be paid out of the Highway Trust Fund
under the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part
V.'', and
(E) in the matter after subparagraph (K), as added by this
paragraph, by striking ``Surface Transportation Extension Act
of 2004, Part IV'' and inserting ``Surface Transportation
Extension Act of 2004, Part V''.
(2) Mass transit account.--Paragraph (3) of section 9503(e)
of such Code is amended--
(A) in the matter before subparagraph (A), by striking
``October 1, 2004'' and inserting ``June 1, 2005'',
(B) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``or'' at the end of
such subparagraph,
(C) in subparagraph (H), by inserting ``or'' at the end of
such subparagraph,
(D) by inserting after subparagraph (H) the following new
subparagraph:
``(I) the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004,
Part V,'', and
(E) in the matter after subparagraph (I), as added by this
paragraph, by striking ``Surface Transportation Extension Act
of 2004, Part IV'' and inserting ``Surface Transportation
Extension Act of 2004, Part V''.
(3) Exception to limitation on transfers.--Subparagraph (B)
of section 9503(b)(5) of such Code is amended by striking
``October 1, 2004'' and inserting ``June 1, 2005''.
(4) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (a) of section 10 of
the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part IV is
amended by striking paragraph (4).
(b) Aquatic Resources Trust Fund.--
(1) Sport fish restoration account.--Paragraph (2) of
section 9504(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by striking ``Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2004, Part IV'' each place it appears and inserting ``Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part V''.
(2) Boat safety account.--Subsection (c) of section 9504 of
such Code is amended--
(A) by striking ``October 1, 2004'' and inserting ``June 1,
2005'', and
(B) by striking ``Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2004, Part IV'' and inserting ``Surface Transportation
Extension Act of 2004, Part V''.
(3) Exception to limitation on transfers.--Paragraph (2) of
section 9504(d) of such Code is amended by striking ``October
1, 2004'' and inserting ``June 1, 2005''.
(c) All Alcohol Fuel Taxes Transferred to Highway Trust
Fund for Fiscal Year 2004.--Subparagraphs (E) and (F) of
section 9503(b)(4) (relating to certain taxes not transferred
to Highway Trust Fund) are each amended by inserting ``before
October 1, 2003, and for the period beginning after September
30, 2004, and'' before ``before October 1, 2005''.
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Transfers to highway trust fund.--The amendments made
by subsection (c) shall apply to taxes imposed after
September 30, 2003.
(e) Temporary Rule Regarding Adjustments.--During the
period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2003 and ending on May 31,
2005, for purposes of making any estimate under section
9503(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 of receipts of
the Highway Trust Fund, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
treat--
(1) each expiring provision of paragraphs (1) through (4)
of section 9503(b) of such Code which is related to
appropriations or transfers to such Fund to have been
extended through the end of the 24-month period referred to
in section 9503(d)(1)(B) of such Code, and
(2) with respect to each tax imposed under the sections
referred to in section 9503(b)(1) of such Code, the rate of
such tax during the 24-month period referred to in section
9503(d)(1)(B) of such Code to be the same as the rate of such
tax as in effect on the date of the enactment of the Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2003.
(f) Apportionment of Highway Trust Funds for Fiscal Year
2004.--Section 9503(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 shall not apply to any apportionment to the States of
the amounts authorized to be appropriated from the Highway
Trust Fund for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Lipinski) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, much has been said during the rule
about the obvious need for this extension, and I will agree with those
who say we need a finalization of the 6-year
[[Page H7880]]
bill; but this extension gives us time to allow the States to go forth
with their construction, with their projects that are necessary, and to
keep some stability in our continued efforts to improve the
transportation system in this great Nation of ours.
I truly believe this will be the last extension. I have endeavored
and will continue to work until we sine die to try to make a
finalization of the 6-year bill. I want to make sure everybody
understands that just because this is an 8-month extension, it does not
mean we have to wait 8 months to get it done. If I can get it done next
week, we are going to get it done. If I can get it done the week after
that, if we are not here, I cannot do that, but if we can get it done
during the lame duck, we can do it then. Or we can do it in February,
March, April, May, June, July, or in that period of time. Whatever we
have to do, we will do to continue to improve our transportation system
in our great Nation.
May I suggest, respectfully, since some have spoken on this bill
about the reauthorization, our committee has done its work. The
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), I see, is managing the bill
today instead of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). We are
going to miss him. He is no longer going to be with us next year, but
he has done his work as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Highways, Transit and Pipelines. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) has done his work; the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri)
has done his work. We have done our work, and we have passed this
legislation over to the other body.
Now, we can point a lot of fingers and we can say this guy, that
person, this other person in the other body did not do it; but in
reality there is a difference of philosophies. I personally will say
that when we passed this bill in the House, I had $375 billion. That is
the number I would like to have. Well, a lot of us would like to have
some things which we cannot achieve. We have agreed and we have worked
with the other body, and we did reach a number that, to me, was a great
victory, $299 billion of contractual authority, $284.3 as obligated
dollars, real dollars, with policies and philosophies in the bill. We
reached those agreements. But, unfortunately, on both sides of the
aisle there are some people in the other body that desire more, and we
were unable to reach that agreement because it was not there.
I would have liked to have had what we agreed to, because I think it
was the appropriate way to go. It did not mean it would be the final
number, but we did not and were not able to achieve that. Consequently,
we are here for this extension. As they said in the rules debate, this
extension is badly needed to continue the stability of our
transportation system.
But I will commit to this House and to this Nation that this
committee will continue to work to finish this job and to work with the
other body to arrive at a conclusion that I think is long overdue.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to this body that we are on
the cusp of a disaster in transportation if we do not act soon. We are
gathering in population more each day. We are importing more each day,
we are exporting more each day, and we are becoming more congested each
day. I am hoping that my State Governors, my State legislators, my
State department of transportation and my mayors, all those people
understand they too have to participate in solving this problem. It
just cannot come from this body. They too must participate with
ambitious and visionary ideas in helping to solve our transportation
problems.
We all must work together. If we do not, we do not leave the
appropriate legacy behind us so this country can continue to grow. I
will say, Mr. Speaker, there are some in this country that do not want
to improve the transportation system, because they realize if they do
not improve upon it, then our ability to be competitive and to be the
leaders of the free world will not occur. So I suggest to this body we
must awaken the people and make sure they understand the effect upon
them and they must respond and ask us, and, yes, their local
legislators, their Governors, their mayors, and those people who lead
them to say yes to participate together with us so we can solve this
problem.
Mr. Speaker, this extension is necessary, and I urge passage of the
extension.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation before
us.
H.R. 5183, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, part V,
continues the highway construction, highway safety, transit, motor
carrier, and surface transportation research programs for 8 months of
fiscal year 2005, expiring on May 31, 2005. Fiscal year 2004 is
completed in this extension as well. The transportation programs under
all previous extensions will be continued under this extension.
This is, we hope, the final short-term extension of the surface
transportation programs' authorization. We have gotten extremely close
to a fair and broadly accepted conclusion to the House-Senate
conference on our multiyear authorization bill, but a stopgap measure
is needed, once again, to give us time to finalize this deal.
This short-term extension is a ``must-pass'' bill. If Congress does
not pass a bill and send it to the President today, 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.
H.R. 5183 provides more than $30 billion in new funding authority,
which reflects 8 months' worth--or two-thirds of the funding
authorization levels the House approved for fiscal year 2005 in TEA LU,
H.R. 3550.
I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 5183 today. It is
vitally important that this bill be passed by both the House and senate
today, delivered to the President--the bill must be flown down to
Florida--and signed before midnight tonight. Our economy cannot
withstand the shutdown of the national surface transportation programs.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, on September 29, the bipartisan leadership
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure introduced H.R.
5183, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004. H.R. 5183 would
extend our Nation's surface transportation programs for an additional 8
months, through May 31, 2005. While I fully support this extension, I
am certainly not pleased that we need to consider such a measure once
again. This is the fifth such extension we are considering since our
highway and transit programs expired exactly 1 year ago.
Earlier this year, my colleagues in this body labored long and very
hard to pass H.R. 3550. In writing TEA-LU, our committee considered the
interests and needs of almost every single Member of this body.
{time} 1115
We held dozens of hearings and we heard from many Members. We heard
about their needs in their districts that they represent. Most
importantly, we listened. We tried to accommodate the needs of every
Member within the $275 billion bill. All in all, I think that the
gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the ranking member, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Petri) and myself on the Committee on Transportation and the
Infrastructure did a good job. I believe we wrote a good bipartisan
bill.
This body passed TEA-LU by a vote of 357-65. But now many, many
months later, this measure is stalled in conference. Let me be clear,
the leadership in this body has worked long and hard to negotiate an
increase in the funding level from $275 billion to $299 billion. I
believe that this is a good funding level. We would all like to have
more, but democracy is compromise and we have all had to compromise.
My understanding is that most of my colleagues in this Chamber will
accept the $299 billion funding for this bill. The leadership of this
body should be commended for their efforts. Unfortunately, the
conference is still stalled due to opposition from some Members of the
other body.
We simply cannot continue to allow our highway and transit programs
to limp along, extension after extension. States and localities are
bearing the brunt of this inaction. State DOTs are flatlining their
capital budgets. Critical transportation projects are not getting
completed. Congestion problems are getting worse.
[[Page H7881]]
However, hope springs eternal. I, for one, believe we can get it
done. Much like Ronald Wilson Reagan, I am an eternal optimist. I also
have faith in our democratic process, and I have faith in our
leadership on the committee and in this body. We still have an
opportunity to finish negotiations on the highway conference, but to do
so I would urge the other body to put aside partisan differences and
think about the Nation, and we simply need to get this job done. But
for now I urge my colleagues to support the extension.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. First of all, I want to say nothing but kudos to the leadership
of this committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the subcommittee leadership. This
committee has worked together as well as any committee in Congress,
particularly during these hard times, on a bill that was entirely
responsive to other Members and entirely responsive to the needs of the
country.
We can keep extending bills. The problem is we cannot extend the
need. The need just gets worse. Many of us are close to desperation
now. We have done our work. Our leadership has tried desperately to get
this bill out, and we are left with what looks like the sixth
extension. The highway bill is about extensions, not bills. This is the
first time that I have ever seen a White House that did not want a
highway bill, that wanted to go into an election without a highway
bill.
Members recognize we had some concerns here and we tried to work them
out. I was a conferee, and I understand what those concerns were. My
problem with the extension is we are extending with funding from 6
years ago. The problem with that is the need has grown larger and
people want this bill because they want whatever new amounts the
committees and the Congress can give them.
I will be frank; most of the money that comes to the District of
Columbia does not have anything to do with the 600,000 residents of the
District of Columbia. My desperation comes because the highway money
for my district could just as well be put in the homeland security
budget because it is going to go for tunnels and bridges which will get
people out of here in the case of an event, and for well-traveled
Federal roads which are used by literally millions of commuters and
visitors every year. So operating at levels from 6 years ago puts us in
a real trick bag. I ask that we finally get this bill out before the
end of the year.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for his tireless work because this will be his
last action on this legislation. I would like to thank my colleagues on
the committee and the chairman of the committee for their work. If we
ran things, we would have already completed a much more robust
investment in our roads, bridges, highways and mass transit here in the
United States, putting millions of people to work and beginning to deal
with the backlog of projects.
Unfortunately, we not only have to deal with the House, the other
body, the Senate and the White House; in this case the White House has
been the big problem. What we are doing here today will mean no
increase. This will be the second year in a row with no increase in
transportation infrastructure spending, even with the accelerating rate
of deterioration of our bridges, even with growing congestion, no new
starts. This does not get anywhere near what we would consider a good
push toward dealing with those problems and putting people back to
work. But the White House has chosen this extraordinarily low number,
$256 billion. They would essentially underspend the highway trust fund.
They collect gas tax from Americans and they would divert some of that
money to other purposes by borrowing from it instead of fully investing
it in roads, bridges, highways and mass transit. That means we are
walking away from a lot of jobs. For every $1 billion we invest in
transportation, the estimates are that we create 47,500 jobs, not just
direct construction jobs which are good jobs which cannot be outsourced
out of the United States, but also spill over into communities, small
businesses, equipment providers, suppliers; all those people would
benefit dramatically.
If we were to adopt the numbers proposed by the Senate at $318
billion, we would create nearly another 2 million jobs. We could use
those jobs. It would also help the President, who is dragging his feet
on this, to deliver on his promise of creating 2 million jobs, which he
has not done yet and is unlikely to be able to accomplish before
November except with the stroke of a pen and signing a bill and showing
that he will create them in the future. But he is refusing to do that.
Unfortunately, there is hesitation with going forward with a more
robust level and challenging the President. Someone spoke earlier about
how the system works, and we have to deal with the Senate and White
House, but we have the power to send something to the White House,
allow him to veto it, and then override. The first vote I cast in the
United States Congress was to override a much more popular President's
veto of a highway bill, Ronald Reagan.
This is not only good for the transportation infrastructure, the
economy, just-in-time delivery, small businesses, construction workers,
it would be of tremendous benefit to the entire economy.
In closing, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Lipinski). He has been a great mentor and friend to me. I will miss
him. I am sure that we will take care of him when we do the highway
bill next year. Although we do not know how much money we will have,
but if we have lots of money, he will still do well, I am sure, and his
State will do well.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first of all I thank the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Petri) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for their hard work in pushing
for the highest amount possible for our Nation's transportation system.
I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski)
who I have enjoyed working with over the past 12 years. I thank the
gentleman for his leadership.
American transportation infrastructure is in need of sufficient
additional funding, particularly as we struggle to finance the security
upgrades needed to protect our transportation system from terrorist
attack. Transportation projects are also a natural economic development
tool which this Nation sorely needs. Department of Transportation
statistics show that every $1 billion invested in transportation
infrastructure creates 42,000 jobs and $2.1 million in economic
activity. It also saves the lives of 1,400 people. We cannot ignore
those numbers. Transportation funding is a win/win for everyone
involved. States get to improve their transportation infrastructure
which creates economic development, puts people back to work, enhances
safety and improves local communities.
Unfortunately, we were unable to add a rail title to the bill, but
that does not mean that our rail infrastructure is taken care of. We
have dangerously underfunded rail security. It is surprising after what
happened in Madrid that rail is not a priority in this administration.
By delaying the passage of much-needed legislation, we are doing a
disservice to the driving population and the Nation as a whole. The
States who are battling red ink want to see a bill passed. Construction
companies laying off employees want to see a bill passed, and citizens
waiting in traffic jams want to see a bill passed. If this Congress
fails to pass a bill funding transportation, shame on us.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the importance of
infrastructure investments to my home
[[Page H7882]]
State of New Jersey and our Nation cannot be overstated. More resources
are desperately required to satisfy unmet needs, to improve livability,
to alleviate congestion, to build safer roads, to upgrade and expand
our mass transit system, to facilitate commerce, and create good-paying
local construction jobs. Every $1 billion invested in Federal highway
and transit spending means over 40,000 jobs are created or sustained.
{time} 1130
Why do we only have an extension on the floor today rather than a
good 6-year bill, a full 6-year bill that can benefit all of our
States? The administration has been one of the biggest roadblocks in
our path. For months, the administration would stonewall on supporting
the funding necessary to get a right-sized bill. Their original
proposal actively ignored new needs, choosing to keep the status quo.
They did not want to make the tough choices in an election year to do
what is right. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Lipinski), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), et cetera know
what is right. They put a lot of hours into this legislation. Both
sides of the aisle.
The President has been deafening in his silence on the importance of
a highway bill. They choose to hold the highway bill hostage as a
credit to their ideology of fiscal responsibility. That is a laugh. It
is a joke. Everybody knows it is. This ignores the reality that we are
running up record deficits. It ignores the reality that the interest we
are paying on the debt, $300 billion this year, is equal to the entire
government outlay in 1974.
So it cannot really be an issue of fiscal responsibility. It is just
politics, plain and simple. I support the extension because we need to
keep the funding flowing to the States, or we will stop those projects
right in their tracks. Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar
understand that we need to keep our States working. They have
understood it too well. Our committee to its credit always works in a
bipartisan manner. At one point, 74 members of our committee supported
a bill which actually provided the level of funding that our own
Department of Transportation recommended. Imagine that, actually
passing a bill based on need, not politics.
We need to keep up with aging roads and bridges and transit systems.
Rather than sitting in traffic, we need to get parents home after work
on time to take care of their families. But leadership has held down
the investment and is holding back trust fund dollars which would
alleviate congestion. Folks are paying gas taxes, user fees, and not
spending that money as we should. 1998 was a long way off, the last
time we passed this legislation. This is terrible. But we need to do
this to keep the projects that are in the ground already working.
I welcome and congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski)
for the fantastic job that he has done, not on our side of the aisle
but for the United States Congress, not only for the people in his
district but for all Americans; and we thank him today.
Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey very much.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the full
committee.
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Here we are again doing an extension. In the famous words of
President Reagan, there you go again, doing another extension. But,
frankly, you might just call this a no-fault divorce. We tried. The
other body tried. The two parties in the other body tried. They could
not come to a meeting of the minds. They could not come to a meeting of
the minds with the White House. The only body that has its act together
is this body. The only group that has its act together is this
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We have worked shoulder
to shoulder and, may I say, kneecap to kneecap across the table to
fashion a bill that is good for America, to move transportation ahead,
that would address congestion and safety and mobility of all things in
America.
We introduced that bill a year ago at a time when gasoline prices
were $1.34 a gallon. They are now consistently well over $2 a gallon
all across the country and that 70-plus cents of increase in fuel
price, about 60 percent of it, 70 percent of it, is going overseas to
OPEC. We are not getting any transportation benefit of that increase in
fuel price. Not a penny of that increase in fuel price is going to fill
pot holes, build new bridges, improve safety on our highways, build
more bicycle lanes.
Incidentally, I must say to the chairman of our committee and ranking
member, I thank the ranking member of the subcommittee for managing
this bill. It is his last hurrah, if you will, on the House floor in a
management position. But I was out on my bicycle doing what I thought
was going to be a 20-mile ride this morning, and I got the message that
this bill was being called up. It seems the leadership over here just
sort of all of a sudden decides in a big rush, this is the time to do
this thing without any advance notice. That is not particularly useful.
In fact, I was dodging pot holes, cursing the road conditions as most
travelers are doing.
But we need to do this. I want to take this opportunity to express my
great appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois for his 2-decade
tenure in this House, for the partnership that we have had, on
aviation, on surface transportation, on railroads, on water resource
issues, everything that has affected this committee. He has really
devoted his career to the work of this committee. The gentleman has
absorbed the subject matter and made it a core of his service in the
Congress. He has not only served his district well and his State well;
he has served the Nation well. I salute the gentleman from Illinois on
this, his last opportunity to manage a major transportation bill.
Perhaps there may be another opportunity. We never know. But it may
be the last. One never knows what happens in this body. Winds blow.
Conditions change. The barometer rises. The barometer falls. Something
happens. It can all happen in the blink of an eye, and we could have a
major bill back on the House floor yet before this Congress adjourns.
I regret, frankly, that we are here with an extension, that we are
not here doing the TEA-LU bill that the chairman of the full committee
and I and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and our committee staff and members have
worked so hard to fashion, because we know that at $375 billion, that
is the level of investment America needs to move this country ahead, at
a time when global mobility at home is a cornerstone of our global
presence in international competition in the marketplace.
About 6 months ago, I visited China to speak at an aviation
conference and traveled to the city of Laiwu, which is the home of a
steel mill which is a part owner in an iron ore mine in my district. I
traveled from Jinan 2 hours to Laiwu. Jinan is a city of 6 million
people. Laiwu is a city of 1.2 million people. They have a six-lane
divided, controlled-access superhighway connecting these two cities,
the vanguard of the equivalent of our interstate highway system which
China is planning to build in the next 15 years to invest well over
$200 billion in improving their mobility, their ability to move goods
to market and people to their destinations; and they are doing it with
the savings of the Chinese people who have a savings rate of over 60
percent.
They are investing $200 billion in modernizing their ports, they are
halfway through a $100 billion airport modernization plan, and we are
sitting here, standing here, advancing the cause of transportation by
taking the 6-year-old TEA-21 and moving it incrementally forward and
saying, sorry, folks, this is the best we can do. That is not right.
This committee knows what is right.
Members of this committee have worked hard. They understand
transportation problems. They understand what America needs. They
understand the needs of mobility. They understand the needs of safety
and investment in America. Yet because of ideological
[[Page H7883]]
hard-and-fast positions by the White House and divisiveness over in the
other body, we cannot move the agenda ahead.
I say, let us pass this bill. Let us inch forward. Let us come back
after this Congress has concluded its business and into the next
Congress and do the right thing for America. Make the right
investments. Let us move America ahead in the way we know it needs to
move, keep our mobility, keep our marketplace production and
productivity and reduce the cost of moving people and goods in America.
Exactly 1 year ago today we ended an era: The era in which our
Nation's transportation policy was governed by legislation establishing
a multiyear plan with the funding needed to implement the plan.
During the past year, our national transportation policy has gone
forward in fits and starts, by extensions of a month or two.
Just over a year ago, on September 24, 2003, when this House was
considering the first surface transportation extension bill, I stated:
``I am afraid . . . we will be back here on this floor once again
pleading for another extension of time to keep transportation programs
from once again expiring. . . . I do not want to be back on this floor
saying again what I said 6 years ago, time is running out.'' What I
predicted then has repeatedly proven correct--we have had 5 additional
extensions since that day. And here we are today pleading once again
for a temporary extension of authorization for highway construction,
highway safety, and public transportation funding.
Our inability to enact legislation to reauthorization surface
transportation programs is caused by an administration guided by
ideology rather than good transportation policy and by the
unwillingness of the Republican leadership in Congress to let the
people's branch of government work its will.
Analysis by the U.S. Department of Transportation shows that we need
to invest $375 billion to maintain and improve our aging
infrastructure. On November 19, 2003, the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure introduced H.R. 3550, authorizing that same amount--
$375 billion for the highway, transit, and transportation safety
programs for the next 6 years. The T&L Committee marked up that
legislation and unanimously voted it favorably to the House, but the
Republican leadership blocked its consideration because of objections
from the administration to the funding level. But that funding level
was derived from the administration's own analysis, and the bill,
included proposals to fully fund the investments. Nevertheless, our
committee was prevented from moving the bill through the legislative
process.
That 1-year delay has been costly to our Nation. AASHTO, the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, estimated
when the first extension was about to expire early this year that
failure to enact a long-term reauthorization would mean a $2.1 billion
increase in project costs and a loss of more than 90,000 jobs that
could have been created a long-term authorization bill.
Today, we continue our muddling through, debating on a measure that
would temporarily extend funding authorization for another 8 months
before the current extension expires at midnight. This is no way to do
business, especially when we are dealing with costly, multiyear
transportation projects that require long-term certainty in planning,
development, and financing. I can only imagine what further damage we
have now done, and at what new financial cost due to another year of
inadequate funding levels.
The extension bill now before us provides some modest increase in the
investment levels of a number of the highway and transit programs,
other programs are less fortunate. Their funding is held constant at
the FY 2003 levels. Moreover, the insistence on passing ``clean''
extension bills, Congress has not been able to modify or update current
surface transportation programs and policies that are in need of such
adjustment.
Overall, this bill would provide $24.5 billion in contract authority
for the 8 months ending on May 31, 2005, for highway programs. This is
based on $36.76 billion for the entire fiscal year 2005. Of these
amounts, $21.3 billion for 8 months is guaranteed. For transit
programs, this bill would provide $5.17 billion guaranteed funding for
8 months.
Despite the fact that the funding levels included in our original
bill were derived from the Department of Transportation's highway and
transit needs report, the administration has strongly opposed
additional infrastructure investment. The President's budget to
Congress flat-lined the highway and transit programs. The President's
bill did not include one additional dollar for highway and transit
investment, nor would it produce one additional job in the
transportation construction sector, over the next 6 years.
But what's worse is the mess we have created in the last year. The
lack of vision, the lack of a clear plan, the continual struggle to
give States scraps from the table. We should do better.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for
those words, particularly those kind words about myself.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, allow me to thank
the great leadership we have on this committee and the diligence with
which they have led us and with which we have worked. The gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar),
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the members of the committee respect and honor
their leadership. It makes for a very good committee.
Three in four Americans now believe that the Nation is facing a
transportation capacity crisis. Our infrastructure desperately needs
attention. There are 17 bridges in my district alone that are currently
in critical condition. Yet in spite of this, we stand poised to
shortchange the American people with another short-term highway
extension.
If you poll any local, State, or transportation industry
representatives, they will tell you that the transportation needs of
this country will only be met by passing a fully funded 6-year bill,
$376 billion, but no less than $319 billion. We did not pull these
numbers out of the air. They are numbers from the administration's own
Department of Transportation's research and assessment. Our leaders in
this committee traveled this country looking at conditions to verify
what we have been told by the administration.
It is ironic that the current argument is over funding levels. Yet
the longer we delay in enacting a fully funded transportation bill, the
costs associated with addressing our Nation's infrastructure will
continue to rise. So just neglecting going through and doing what is
right, we are going to cause ourselves to spend more money.
If the Republican administration can find time to place such a great
emphasis on the reconstruction of other countries, surely priority
should be given to our Nation's crumbling infrastructure and bringing
the needed jobs. Our constituents are counting on us to do the right
thing and we really should not let them down. We have cars collapsing
on bridges. The highways are so bad until accidents are being caused.
It is time for us to stand up and pass this bill and do something for
our Nation and bring about good jobs.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First of all, I want to once again say that I appreciate the kind
words the gentleman from Minnesota had to say about me. I would like to
say that I learned a great deal from him over the course of my time
here in the House of Representatives. Oftentimes I refer to him as Mr.
Transportation, and I sincerely mean that. He probably knows more about
transportation than anyone I have met in the 22 years I have been in
the House of Representatives and he has certainly been enormously
helpful to me in my career here. I also want to thank Chairman Young
and Chairman Petri for including me as much as they have in the
deliberations on this bill, through the subcommittee, the full
committee, the House floor, and in the conference committee. I have
really felt like a partner in this legislation. If I had been in the
majority, I do not think that I could have been treated any better than
I was by Chairman Young and Chairman Petri, and I sincerely appreciate
that.
It has been very enjoyable working on this bill. I have been very
pleased, as I say, with the participation that we have been given by
the majority. There has been a lot of talk here today about this bill
not becoming law and us not getting out of conference. I simply want to
say, and I will preface this for the benefit of the few people who do
not know, the Speaker of the House and I have a very good relationship
and we have had for a long time. So I say that because I want to say
that no one has worked harder to get this bill passed into law than
Denny Hastert. I know that Chairman Young has had many, many meetings
with him.
[[Page H7884]]
{time} 1145
I know that the Speaker has gone to the White House on countless
occasions. I know he has talked to the Senators, the Senate conference
committee members. I know that the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman
Young); the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member;
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) have worked very hard on this
bill. But I do not think they worked any harder on getting this bill
passed than the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) has, and I
want to make sure everyone understands that in this body. Yes, we have
problems. Yes, the Republicans control the White House, the Senate, and
the House. But as I know from Illinois, where the Democrats control the
governorship, the Senate, and the House, sometimes when one party
controls everything, they do not quite get along as well as they would
have if they were in the minority. So I appreciate that. I understand
that.
I would also like to say in conclusion that there have been people
who have helped our staff and helped the Democratic side considerably.
That is, people from the House Legislative Counsel, Dave, Curt, and
Rosemary; from DOT, Megan, Brigham, Jim, Gary; from NHTSA, Scott,
Brian, Marlene; from FTA, William, Kris, Rita; from FHWA, Ross, Sue,
Carolyn, and Susan. And certainly, David and Ward on our staff here
have put an awful lot of work into this bill.
I am still hopeful that when we get back from our recess during the
course of the election period of time that we will be able to pass this
bill so that I will still be here in the House of Representatives when
this bill becomes law. I am for the extension. Let us move on it. Let
us get back to work trying to be bring this bill to conference.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
In closing, this is a time that is always difficult for someone who
has served with something for so long, but I will tell the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) we are going to miss him. We are going to
probably see him. But as Members leave this body that have contributed
to not only their districts but the Nation, it is a loss. We know that.
I know he knows that. But I also respect his desire to go and do bigger
and greater things. But I look forward to seeing him back on the Hill
during this period of time in the near future so that we can
communicate and work together on a cause that he has great feeling for,
and that is transportation. And he can be assured that I will always be
there to hear his wisdom, and he can be sure that I and the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) are going to accomplish the goals along
with our subcommittee chairman on this transportation bill, I hope in
the near future. If we cannot, it will be, not in the far future, but
in the close future. So, again, I wish him Godspeed and be well on his
travels. We will miss him.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Surface Transportation Extension Act, which extends funding for vital
highway and transit programs for eight months, through May 31, 2005. I
want to thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar for working to
pass an extension that is fair and equitable. They have had to deal
with the truly difficult task of coming to agreement on a multi-year
transportation agreement and I commend them on the job they have done
so far.
I am pleased to hear that this current extension has been made much
more fair and equitable to all states through the use of current gas
tax contribution data instead of the proposed use of outdated data. The
use of outdated data would have meant that a number of states led by
Texas would not have received the proper amount of funding due to them.
This extension is now in line with the funding formula structure of the
Federal-Aid Highway program as stipulated by TEA 21's Minimum Guarantee
program that provides all states at least a 90.5 percent rate of return
from each state's federal gas tax contributions through the core
highway formula programs and High Priority Projects.
Had the outdated gas tax contribution data been used Texas would have
stood to lose $115.8 million in contract authority. Clearly, this
simple issue of using current data could have been devastating to
transportation projects in the state of Texas and would have been
inequitable considering Texas's increased contribution to the federal
Highway Trust Fund. Again, I commend Chairman Young and Ranking Member
Oberstar for having the foresight to correct this inequity and ensure
that states that contribute to the federal Highway Trust Fund are given
a proper rate of return.
This extension provides an advance of $21.3 billion in contract
authority for federal-aid highway programs for the eight-month period.
It also sets an obligation limit of \8/12\ of the obligation limit in
the FY 2005 Transportation-Treasury appropriations measure, which
should provide about $24.5 billion over the eight-month period. This
money is necessary as we continue vital highway construction projects
that will benefit the American people.
This extension also suspends the Harry Byrd Rule, which prevents
highway spending from exceeding gas-tax revenues. This year, the
estimated receipts for the trust fund fell, which may have triggered a
reduction in the apportionments to the states. By suspending the Harry
Byrd Rule, the extension prevents states from receiving reduced
allocations at a time when most states are in dire need of additional
transportation funding.
As a body we must insist on a proper agreement for a long term
transportation agreement because it is of such vital interest to our
Nation. Investments in our Nation's surface transportation
infrastructure create millions of family-wage jobs and billions of
dollars of economic activity. Each $1 billion of Federal funds creates
47,500 jobs and $6.1 billion in economic activity. In addition, this
investment in transportation infrastructure will increase business
productivity by reducing the costs of producing goods in virtually all
industrial sectors of the economy. Increased productivity results in
increased demand for labor, capital, and raw materials and generally
leads to lower product prices and increased sales.
Because so much is literally riding on a transportation agreement for
the 21st Century we must insist on a balanced surface transportation
program that serves the mobility needs of our country in a manner
consistent with key Democratic principles, including: economic growth,
intermodalism, security, safety, continuity, equal opportunity,
protecting our human and natural environment, rebuilding our transit
and highway systems, encouraging alternative transportation,
encouraging smart growth, encouraging advanced technology solutions,
and protecting the rights of workers in transportation industries.
While I am satisfied with this current extension I look forward to the
day when we can pass a comprehensive and equitable transportation
agreement that serves the 21st Century transportation needs of the
American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). All time for debate
has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the bill is considered read for the
amendment, and the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. DeFazio
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I offer motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. DeFAZIO moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5183 to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with
instructions to report the same back to the House promptly
with an amendment increasing each number in the bill by
12.8485 percent.
Mr. DeFAZIO (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oregon?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized for 5 minutes in support to his
motion.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward motion within the
parliamentary constraints of the House. Some might say, because we
would ask the bill to be sent back promptly, that we are dooming it to
death.
We have been waiting 11 months for a highway bill, 11 months since
the last one expired. Give us 2 hours, and we will give them a lot more
investment
[[Page H7885]]
and a lot more jobs. We can deliver this bill back within 2 hours. The
House could pass a bill at the Senate levels this evening.
All across America that would make a big difference. Across the
entire country, that would mean that we would have, if we adopted that
level ultimately for 6 years, an increase of $37 billion in spending.
That is 1.7 million jobs; 1.7 million jobs could be created. We could
begin to deal with the 161,000 bridges in this country that are
structurally deficient, one in four. My own little State has a $4.7
billion bridge problem.
We are trying to do our own part, as the chairman asked. We have
raised registration and other fees. But we need a little bit of help
because this is Interstate 5, the federal highway that goes between
Canada, Mexico and includes Oregon, Washington, and California. There
is some federal obligation, I believe, to help maintain that highway.
This has been a maddening process for those of us who care about
transportation, who care about our failing bridges and the potholes and
our congestion and the lack of new starts and mass transit, all those
things. If we had our way, we would have significantly more investment,
according to a unanimous vote of the committee on which I serve,
bipartisan. We voted for the number which has been outlined by the
President's own Department of Transportation, $375 billion over 6
years. And even that would not take care of all the problems, but it
would sure be a lot more to address them. But the President has taken a
hard line at $259 billion, far below the number passed by the House,
way below the number passed by the Senate, and about one-third below
the number recommended by his own experts. This is inexplicable. This
is investment. This is paid for out of gas taxes, which each and every
American pays every time they tank up their car. We owe them an
obligation to make this investment, not to stick with the levels of
that are now 6 years out of date under the old legislation but to look
at something that will spend more, begin to deal more with the backlog,
put more people to work. We could help the President deliver on his own
promise. This would create 1.7 million jobs. The President could sign a
bill which we could have back and have ready for consideration by five
o'clock tonight. He could sign it tomorrow in the Rose Garden, and he
could refute the claims of his opponent that he had lost 1.7 million
jobs because he would just have signed a bill to create 1.7 million
jobs.
For the life of me, I do not understand the reluctance at the White
House to invest the people's tax dollars paid for every time they tank
up their car in investment in the people's infrastructure, the
infrastructure that will benefit not only individuals but businesses
all across America who depend upon just-in-time delivery. Just-in-time
delivery is pretty hard when they have got to detour a truck over the
Cascade Mountains in Oregon, down the far side and then back down again
to I-5 because of failed bridges. And that is unique. That kind of
thing takes place all across America. Trucks are detouring hundreds of
miles out of their way, wasting fuel, wasting time, making us less
efficient because the Federal Government says we do not have the money
to catch up with this backlog on bridges.
Well, we do have the money. We are taxing the people. We should adopt
a more robust level. We should deal with some of the problems and the
disparities among the States, the whole issue that States give a whole
bunch more in than they get back. But we cannot do that unless we have
higher levels of funding. It is impossible.
And that is what this amendment does, very simply. It would bring the
bill back later this evening, spending at the levels of the Senate
bill, which would put over 6 years, if finally adopted, 1.7 million
people to work, 20,000 people in my State, and begin to defray that
backlog.
I would hope that we will pass this motion unanimously and make the
investment that we need. And I think the President will sign it. I
doubt very much he will see fit to veto the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
I would hope that we not pass this motion immediately. I understand
the point that is being made, and it is perfectly reasonable. But the
fact is that we are currently operating under a continuing resolution.
It expires at midnight tonight, and if we do not get this measure
through the Senate and to the President, who is down in Florida on
other business, before that time, some of the money that would
otherwise be spent on transportation, some of the jobs that would
otherwise exist in the transportation sector will be lost.
And the motion is very short. It simply changes the numbers in the
bill by 12 and a fraction percent. But, in fact, trying to figure out
how that would work in practice and the consequences of it, it would be
anything but short. This would endanger the ability to continue our
transportation programs.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
My staff says that they can do the computer runs and have the numbers
within 2 hours, which would give us ample time to get the bill faxed
before the President for signature before midnight tonight.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am not talking about
the mechanics of running the numbers. I am talking about the mechanics
of operating the political machinery in order to get something that, in
fact, would be passed by the Senate and signed by the President.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion
to recommit.
I know my good friend from Oregon is a good soldier, and I understand
what he is trying to do, but I hope no one takes it too seriously
because this would kill this legislation that we have today for an
extension of our highway program which would cost us about 150,000
immediate jobs, disrupt all State programs, all projects in districts
and, in fact, create chaos. And there is a time problem because the
reality is that this has to be signed by the President tonight or it
does come to a halt. And so what we have to do now is pass this
legislation, vote against this motion to recommit, pass this
legislation and send it over to the Senate. And I am not speaking too
broadly about the Senate because we do not control it, and I know I am
not supposed to mention it. But the other body must also act. And then
it has to get on an airplane and be flown to Florida because there is
the big debate tonight. And he has to sign it. I am sure it is not a
big deal with the President, but it is necessary for highway projects.
And just tongue in cheek, to the gentleman from Oregon, the way his
motion to recommit is that each number in the bill would have to be
raised 12.84, 12.85 percent, and that means that H.R. 5183 would no
longer be H.R. 5183, it would be, I guess, 52.6 or something, and all
the numbers in the bill, instead of section 22, it would have to be
section 22.8 and on down the line.
I understand the reasoning why, but I do urge my colleagues to think
very seriously about it. Let us keep the course. Vote against the
motion to recommit and then pass this legislation so we can continue
our transportation needs in this country, not to the degree we want but
what is necessary at this time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this
15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute
votes on passage of H.R. 5183, if ordered; the motion to suspend the
rules on H.R. 5149; and the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 4231.
[[Page H7886]]
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 199,
nays 218, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 480]
YEAS--199
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--218
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Boehlert
Brown, Corrine
Cannon
Davis (IL)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Nethercutt
Ros-Lehtinen
Tauzin
Weldon (PA)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida) (during the vote).
Members are advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1223
Mr. MORAN of Virginia changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 409,
noes 8, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 481]
AYES--409
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
[[Page H7887]]
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--8
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Hensarling
Jones (NC)
Oxley
Paul
Stearns
Toomey
NOT VOTING--15
Boehlert
Brown, Corrine
Cannon
Davis (IL)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Nethercutt
Ros-Lehtinen
Saxton
Tauzin
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1230
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________