ranking member of our committee, mr. mica, designates himself proudly as a conservative as supporting this bill. this is a jobs bill. go ahead and laugh. go ahead and laugh. shows you don't understand much, mr. speaker, those who are laughing. 28 million jobs depend on coastal areas of the united states. 185 billion in commercial and recreational fishing from estuaries of the united states, two million jobs at stake. 3/4 of all commercial fishing depends on estuaries. 3/4 of recreational fish caught relies on this. and for the last 20-plus years, has declined because of impaired estuaries. this is an investment in america's future and in the yuning people of this country for whom the gentleman proposes cutting $15 million. this is an investment. this is not an entitlement, but an authorization to compete with other programs for the funding yes, sir to protect our estuaries, which are the beginning places of new life and the home of millions of jobs and the future of america. vote down this amendment. the speaker pro tempore:

i want to thank chairman oberstar and ranking member, mr. mica, as well as mr. petri for working with me to bring this bill to the floor today. in both the 110th and 111th congresses, the house passed comprehensive legislation to re-authorize the f.a.a. and to provide for much-needed modernization of our aviation system. last month, the other body passed its own f.a.a. re-authorization bill. we look forward to the completion of a final comprehensive bill and are in the process of working out the differences, the measures in both legislation to reconcile and bring a conference report to the floor. however, the airport and airway trust fund will expire on april 30, 2010, and the bill before us today, h.r. 5147 is needed to extend the aviation taxes and expenditure authority in the airport improvement contract authority until july, 2010. specifically, h.r. 5147 provides $3 billion in a.i.p. contract authority through early july which translates to an annualized amount of $4 billion for fiscal year 2010. this level of funding is consistent with the annual levels pro

. >> why have you been on the tax because i mr. micawas great because my understanding of the position is there is a cause that has been introduced this aching, but it will apply to a second finance bill in june. but is the nature is there are negotiations between all the parties. [inaudible] >> it's the nature of any that there will be negotiations involving the toys. >> thank you all very much indeed. >> well, anyone who tells you they know how this election is going to turn out has been practicing abuse. the opinion polls have shown a conservative lead of various sizes, but for a government they have never really, i'm so i can

i know mr. mica as many times is that we just have to move ahead with this bill.l of the members feel that way. and we've had little difficulty getting the senate to concur with those, but senator boxer made a statement, a hearing two weeks ago, and against last week that she will move ahead with a bill that starts with our document as the foundation for it. so i am very encouraged that we will be able to complete the bill in this session of congress. ms. richardson, director of the iowa department of transportation, you have already been won and generously introduced by mr. boswell. >> i am nancy richards, director of the iowa department of transportation and on behalf of the american association of highway and transportation officials, i'm here to talk to about three things. first the successes states are achieving for the recovery act, second the states ability to spend further funding on additional ready to go projects. and third, the role transportation and rebuilding and sustaining our nation's economy and the importance of passage of a new federal highway a

mica talk to me about i heard. >> let me ask a question back to the logcap iii, logcap iv transition. also i want to clarify something. mrat the thrust of the briefing was. by that he meant clearly what was the sense of the recommendation that was being made? and was the sense of the recommendation being made that there wouldn't be a transition? and in response to my recollection is you said that was discussed. it's a little different from asking the question of what the thrust of the breaching of was. what was the sense you got as to what the recommendation ultimately will be? >> i don't know what the recommendation all to many will be. what would on enemy was essentially an analysis of the alternatives presented. with respect to business cases can both operational requirement. >> let me, can i help? just for yes or no. because it was explained to me that there was a recommendation that, and they want to alternatives, you're absolutely correct, but there was a recommendation what make emotions that ought to go forward for approval is to cancel the competition and go with a continuation of the logcap iii. that's what i w