[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 36 (Thursday, March 26, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1553-H1556]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     QUESTION OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of personal privilege.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). Based on the Chair's 
examination of press accounts referring to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) which he has furnished to the Chair, the 
gentleman is recognized for a question of personal privilege. Under 
rule IX, the gentleman is recognized for 1 hour.
  (Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, many years ago, Joseph McCarthy in 
Wheeling, West Virginia stood up and waved papers and said he had the 
names of 57 Communists in government. Well, he got lots of headlines 
but, of course, he was eventually proved to be a liar. I am reminded of 
that event, although I certainly make no such charge here today.
  Mr. Speaker, three of our colleagues have made numerous statements in 
the media that we have been, quote, ``buying votes,'' to get them to 
support our BESTEA transportation legislation in exchange for projects 
which we have given them. Indeed, conversely, that we have been 
threatening Members that if they did not vote with us, they would not 
get the projects.
  Let me make this very clear. I challenge these Members to name one 
person, one person whom I went to and said they will get a project in 
exchange for their vote. I challenge them to name one person who I 
threatened that they not get a project if they voted against us.
  Indeed, if we look back at the battle we had here last year on the 
budget resolution where we had our transportation amendment, I urge my 
colleagues to go look at Members who voted against us and then look at 
the projects they are receiving today. This is simply a blatant 
falsehood.
  Now, no doubt many Members support our legislation because it is 
important to their district, because it is important to America, 
because they are getting projects that they have requested and which 
have been vetted through our 14-point requirement.
  It seems that in life sometimes there are those who, when one takes a 
different view from their view, they must somehow ascribe some base 
motivation. They simply cannot believe that because someone disagrees 
with them, that another's motives can be as pure as theirs. Indeed, 
sometimes it seems as though the smaller the minority they represent, 
the more incensed they become, because they view themselves as more 
pure, more righteous, more sanctimonious than the larger majority of us 
who are mere mortals. But I do not ascribe any of these motives to our 
colleagues. I prefer to believe that they simply are misinformed.
  Mr. Speaker, the supreme irony, the supreme irony is that the three 
individuals who have been attacking us, attacking our motives, 
attacking our integrity, have submitted projects to us for their own 
congressional districts.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar), ranking member of the full committee.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Shuster) for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I join in the gentleman's indignation, to put it mildly,

[[Page H1554]]

over these attacks that are totally unjustified, unfounded, and 
inappropriate for Members of this body to make.
  First of all, the projects in question have gone through a very 
thorough and careful vetting process according to a 14-point outline 
that the committee fashioned, which includes a requirement that the 
project be on the State's priority or State's future project 
development list. The points that are included in the review of 
projects are all the points that States use to measure validity of 
projects that their transportation departments will fund.
  After reviewing all of these projects and ensuring that they meet 
standards accepted by States and that these are projects necessary in a 
Member's district, we accept the Member's judgment as to what is 
necessary for his or her district, and those projects are included in 
this package, as was done in 1991 in the previous transportation bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I could understand Members disagreeing with the process, 
but I do not approve, I am offended by the use of language and by the 
accusations made. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has been a vigorous 
advocate for transportation since before he was elected to Congress in 
1972 and since taking his place on the then-Committee on Public Works 
and now-Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Under his 
chairmanship, he has waged a nationwide campaign for increased 
investment in the Nation's portfolio of bridges, highways, buses, 
transit systems, but above all, its safety. He is a champion of safety.
  The gentleman's drive to increase spending out of the highway trust 
fund, tax dollars that have been collected at the pump but not paid 
into projects for which driving America has already been taxed, is 
clear and well known and widely respected, open and clear for everyone 
to review.
  So when the gentleman from Pennsylvania or I, together on a 
bipartisan basis, present our program to our respective caucuses and to 
this body and ask for their support, we do so very clearly, very 
openly, without any hidden agenda. And for Members then to say that 
they have been somehow browbeaten, whipped into line, or threatened is 
totally inappropriate and totally untrue.
  As a strong and vigorous advocate for his viewpoint, I respect the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania and I respect those who take a differing 
viewpoint. They are entitled to that viewpoint. They are also entitled 
to the fair share of funding that we have designated without any 
questions, without any quid pro quo.
  We respect and always have respected the Members' right to vote their 
district and their conscience. We would ask them, and I do not think 
there is anything inappropriate to ask a Member to support this 
legislation, but we respect their right not to.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania has conducted 
himself with the highest dignity, with the appropriate character of a 
Member of Congress of this distinguished body, in the same manner that 
he has done for his 26 years in the House of Representatives. I join 
with him in reproving those who have used such inappropriate language. 
It is an assault upon the integrity of the chairman of this committee, 
a Member who has championed the cause for all of America for better 
transportation, better investment in the future of our economy, and I 
salute the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Minnesota for those words.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for being a chairman and taking care of the 
jurisdictional authority which he is in charge of. I am tired of the 
``pork barrel'' labels on the gentleman from Pennsylvania and on the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. Speaker, I had five bridges in the original ISTEA bill, and one 
of the major news networks came to my district and said, boy, you are 
getting all of this pork. And I said, come on down. Then I showed them 
bridges with a sway, with a 2-ton weight limit. The next bridge down 
had a 5-ton weight limit. And I got those bridges built. I got the 
money for them. And they are still not built; they are now under 
process. That is how many years it takes.
  Well, I want to announce here that as soon as the wrecking crew 
appeared on the Center Street Bridge, the first time the backhoe hit 
one of the steel structures, the bridge collapsed.

                              {time}  1015

  They said, thank God citizens were not killed. Enough of this pork 
barrel madness. Ohio had 28 major projects announced last year, and my 
district did not get one of them; and I have the most infrastructure 
needs in the country. No Member of Congress should go home and flout 
this pork barrel if they have got infrastructure needs and they are not 
taking care of it. Because that is why we are elected.
  And by God, I am just glad we are building the Center Street bridge 
and no one in my district got hurt. I want to say this as a former Pitt 
grad, my colleague stands for what a chairman should be; and all 
chairmen should deal with their jurisdictional authority and dispatch 
the duties like he has.
  I stand with him, proud to be associated with him, and I commend him 
and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for the fine job they 
have done on this bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, if the Chairman would continue to yield, 
let me just emphasize once again, never on our side or on the 
chairman's side of the aisle was any Member told that conclusion of 
their project was contingent upon or dependent upon their vote. No 
Member was asked how they intended to vote in advance. Projects were 
included for Members on the basis of the merits of the project, not on 
how they would vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:
                                    Washington, DC, March 7, 1996.
     Hon. Bud Shuster,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Shuster: Recently, the Oklahoma Department of 
     Transportation submitted an authorization request to your 
     Committee to extend the Broken Arrow Expressway from I-44 
     southeast approximately 8.0 miles to the Tulsa County Line.
       I am forwarding the enclosed request on to your Committee 
     for its consideration. I am confident that the merit of the 
     project will speak for itself.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Steve Largent,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____


   Information Requests for Transportation Projects State of Oklahoma

       Project Description: SH 51 (Broken Arrow Expressway) 
     extending from I-44 southeast approximately 8.0 miles to the 
     Tulsa County Line.


            evaluation criteria and responses are as follows

       1. Name and Congressional District of the Primary Member of 
     Congress sponsoring the project, as well as any other Members 
     supporting the project (each project must have a single 
     primary sponsoring Member).
       U.S. Representative Steve Largent.
       2. Identify the State or other qualified recipient 
     responsible for carrying out the project.
       Oklahoma Department of Transportation.
       3. Is the project eligible for the use of Federal-aid funds 
     (if a road or bridge project, please note whether it is on 
     the National Highway System)?
       This project is eligible for Federal-aid funds and it is on 
     the National Highway System.
       4. Describe the design, scope and objectives of the project 
     and whether it is part of a larger system of projects. In 
     doing so, identify the specific segment for which project 
     funding is being sought including terminus points.
       Design/Scope: Reconstruct the existing 4 lane highway and 
     add 2 additional lanes to provide a 6 lane facility. This 
     project will complete the final improvements to upgrade the 
     Broken Arrow Expressway which connects the Tulsa central 
     business district with Broken Arrow, Oklahoma and the 
     residential developments in the western portion of Wagoner 
     County. The specific section we are requesting funding for 
     extends from I-44 southeast 8.0 miles to the Tulsa/Wagoner 
     County Line.
       5. What is the total project cost and proposed source of 
     funds (please identify the federal, state, or local shares 
     and the extent, if any, of private sector financing or the 
     use of innovative financing) and of this amount, how much is 
     being requested for the specific project segment described in 
     item #4?
       The estimated total cost of this project is $160,000,000 
     and the average daily traffic volume on this section of 
     highway is in excess of 78,000 vehicles daily.
       10. Does the project have national or regional 
     significance?

[[Page H1555]]

       This project is on the National Highway System and it 
     serves as a connector route between I-44, I-444, I-244, US 
     64, US 169 and the Muskogee Turnpike. Consequently, this 
     highway serves both local commuter traffic and interstate 
     travel which makes it significant from a national and 
     regional level.
       11. Has the proposed project encountered, or is it likely 
     to encounter, any significant opposition or other obstacles 
     based on environmental or other types of concerns?
       Although an environmental assessment has been completed on 
     this project, a reassessment will be required. The EA 
     includes the mainline, but does not include the interchange 
     at US 169. Clearance of the SH 51/US 169 interchange will 
     likely require intermodal issues and a major investment study 
     (MIS).
       12. Describe the economic, energy efficiency, and 
     environmental, congestion mitigation and safety benefits 
     associated with completion of the project.
       Widening this expressway to 6 lanes, reconstructing the 
     major clover leaf interchanges, and providing full 
     directional interchanges will significantly increase 
     capacity, reduce congestion and improve the safety of this 
     major highway serving the Tulsa metropolitan area.
       13. Has the project received funding through the State's 
     Federal aid highway apportionment, or in the case of a 
     transit project, through Federal Transit Administration 
     funding? If not, why not?
       The State of Oklahoma has expended in excess of $34,000,000 
     in State and Federal funds on this project to perform 
     preliminary engineering work, acquire right-of-way, relocate 
     utilities, and reconstruction work on several sections of the 
     highway in the past few years.
       Is the authorization requested for the project an increase 
     to an amount previously authorized or appropriated for it in 
     federal statue (if so, please identify the statute, the 
     amount provided, and the amount obligated to date), or would 
     this be the first authorization for the project in a federal 
     statute? If the authorization requested is for a transit 
     project, has it previously received appropriations and/or 
     received a Letter of Intent or entered into a Full Funding 
     Grant Agreement with the FTA.
       The authorization requested for this project would be the 
     first one received by the State of Oklahoma on the Broken 
     Arrow Expressway.
                                  ____

                                Washington, DC, February 25, 1997.
     Hon. Bud Shuster,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Shuster: Enclosed, please find a copy of an 
     ISTEA funding request by the City of Charlotte, North 
     Carolina, which we both represent. As the attached proposal 
     indicates, the City of Charlotte is seeking funds for a South 
     Corridor Transitway, one of the first of its kind in the 
     United States. This project would link Uptown Charlotte to 
     Southeast Charlotte via a 13.5 mile express bus transitway, 
     relieving traffic congestion and providing improved access to 
     the City's Uptown area.
       We respectfully submit this proposal by the City of 
     Charlotte and ask for your due consideration of this request. 
     Please do not hesitate to contact either one of us with 
     questions or concerns. We would both be pleased to speak with 
     you further concerning this project.
       Thank you in advance for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Sue Myrick,
       Member of Congress.
     Melvin Watt,
       Member of Congress.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, March 6, 1997.
     Hon. Thomas E. Petri,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Chairman-Subcommittee on 
         Surface Transportation, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Petri: I encourage you to read the 
     following testimony and letter. The enclosed detail very 
     carefully the importance of Oklahoma's surface 
     transportation.
       I request that you give the State Highway 51 demonstration 
     project proposal your full consideration.
       In advance, I would like to thank you and your colleagues 
     on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for your 
     diligence and hard work on the upcoming ISTEA 
     reauthorization.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                Tom A. Coburn, MD,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____

                                                State of Oklahoma,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                  Oklahoma, OK, February 21, 1997.
     Hon. Thomas E. Petri,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Chairman-Subcommittee on 
         Surface Transportation, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Petri: The significance of our surface 
     transportation system should not be under estimated. Careful 
     investment in our infrastructure increases productivity and 
     economic prosperity at local and regional levels. Despite the 
     importance of our transportation system to the nation's 
     economic health, investment has fallen well short of what is 
     truly needed. Dealing with these needs will require numerous 
     approaches, including special project funding.
       As you begin the monumental task of reauthorizing the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
     (ISETA), we, the undersigned, wish to lend our support to the 
     following special funding request which is in addition to our 
     existing obligation limit and is critical to the 
     transportation needs of the State of Oklahoma.
       SH 51 extending from Coweta east approximately 14.6 miles 
     to Wagoner, Oklahoma.
       We commend your committee for its role in enacting ISTEA 
     and for the subsequent improvements made with the passage of 
     the National Highway System Bill last year. A sound national 
     transportation policy is critical to our state's economy and 
     our nation's ability to compete globally. To that end we urge 
     you to evaluate our request and take the appropriate action.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank Keating,
                                                         Governor.
                                                  Neal A. McCaleb,
                                      Secretary of Transportation.
                                                    Herschal Crow,
     Chairman, Oklahoma Transportation Commission.
                                  ____


  Demonstration Project Testimony, State Highway 51, Wagoner, Oklahoma

       Submitted by: the Honorable Tom A. Coburn, U.S. House of 
Representatives and Neal A. McCaleb, Secretary of Transportation, State 
                              of Oklahoma

       State Highway 51 (SH 51): SH-51 extending east from Coweta 
     to the Arkansas border, has been identified as a 
     Transportation Improvement Corridor. Eastern Oklahoma has an 
     ever increasing population. Tourism has also increased in the 
     Fort Gibson Lake and Tahlequah areas. These two factors form 
     the basis of why reconstruction of SH-51 is of foremost 
     concern.
       The route has a high accident rate and contains bridges 
     that are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. For 
     projected traffic, this two lane route with no shoulders is 
     unacceptable, and could ultimately curb any future economic 
     growth in the northeastern region of Oklahoma.
       In addition to tourism dollars, the highway also serves as 
     a major travel corridor and commuter route extending from the 
     Tulsa Metropolitan area east to Broken Arrow, Muskogee and 
     the Arkansas state line.
       SH-51 is crucial to the region's business, industry and 
     labor, because it provides access to the Tulsa metropolitan 
     area, McClellan Kerr Navigational System, and several 
     recreational areas in eastern Oklahoma.
       Nationally significant, SH-51 connects with I-44, I-244, 
     the Muskogee Turnpike, US-412 and other major routes in 
     eastern Oklahoma.
       It is essential that SH-51 be expanded to four lanes to 
     increase capacity, promote tourism, boost economic growth, 
     and to improve safety and congestion. This project is 
     estimated to cost $63 million, and although the state has 
     expended nearly $34 million to improve this corridor, it is 
     simply not enough in view of the overall critical needs of 
     the entire highway system.

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Surface 
Transportation Information Requests for Transportation Projects, State 
                              of Oklahoma

       Project Description: SH 51 extending from Coweta east 
     approximately 14.6 miles to Wagoner, Oklahoma.
       Evaluation Criteria and Responses are as follows:
       1. Name and Congressional District of the Primary Member of 
     Congress sponsoring the project, as well as any other Members 
     supporting the project (each project must have a single 
     primary sponsoring Member).
       Response to No. 1: U.S. Representative Tom Coburn.
       2. Identify the State or other qualified recipient 
     responsible for carrying out the project.
       Response to No. 2: Oklahoma Department of Transportation.
       3. Is the project eligible for the use of Federal-aid funds 
     (if a road or bridge project, please note whether it is on 
     the National Highway System)?
       Response to No. 3: This project is eligible for the use of 
     Federal-aid funds, but it is not on the National Highway 
     System.
       4. Describe the design, scope and objectives of the project 
     and whether it is part of a larger system of projects. In 
     doing so, identify the specific segment for which project 
     funding is being sought including terminus points.
       Response to No. 4: Design/Scope: Reconstruct to 4 lanes. 
     The objectives of this project is to continue improving SH 51 
     from Tulsa extending west approximately 59.0 miles to 
     Tahlequah, Oklahoma. The specific section for which we are 
     requesting funding extends from Coweta east 14.6 miles to 
     Wagoner, including the Wagoner bypass.
       5. What is the total project cost and proposed source of 
     funds (please identify the federal, state, or local shares 
     and the extent, if any, of private sector financing or the 
     use of innovative financing) and of this amount, how much is 
     being requested for the specific project segment described in 
     Item No. 4?
       Response to No. 5: The estimated total cost of this project 
     is $63,000,000.00 and we are requesting $50,400,000.00 in 
     Federal-aid funds. The State of Oklahoma will provide 
     $12,600,000.00 in matching funds to finance this project.
       6. Of the amount requested, how much is expected to be 
     obligated over each of the next 5 years?

[[Page H1556]]

       Response to No. 6: All of the funds we are requesting can 
     be obligated over the next 5 years.
       7. What is the proposed schedule and status of work on the 
     project?
       Response to No. 7: The environmental clearance has been 
     completed on this project. However, a reassessment may be 
     necessary. Following completion of the environmental 
     reassessment, right-of-way and design plans will be prepared 
     and this takes approximately 2 years. Right-of-way 
     acquisition will then take about 18 months to complete. 
     Construction contracts should be ready for letting within 4 
     to 5 years.
       8. Is the project included in the metropolitan and/or State 
     Transportation Improvement Program(s), or the State long-
     range plan and, if so, is it scheduled for funding?
       Response to No. 8: The right-of-way acquisition and utility 
     relocations for one section of this project are currently on 
     the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program and funding 
     is scheduled for these items. The entire project limit, 
     however, is identified as one of the transportation 
     improvement corridors in the Statewide Intermodal 
     Transportation Plan (long range plan). Due to the high cost 
     of this project and the State's limited funds, the remaining 
     construction, right-of-way, and utility phases of this 
     project are not currently scheduled.
       9. Is the project considered by State and/or regional 
     transportation officials as critical to their needs? Please 
     provide a letter of support from these officials, and if you 
     cannot, explain why not.
       Response to No. 9: This project is considered critical to 
     the economic growth of the eastern region of Oklahoma which 
     generates a large amount of tourism in the Fort Gibson Lake 
     and Tahlequah areas. The highway also serves as a major 
     travel corridor and commuter route extending from the Tulsa 
     Metropolitan area east to Broken Bow, Muskogee and the 
     Arkansas State Line.
       10. Does the project have national or regional 
     significance?
       Response to No. 10: This project is regionally significant 
     because it provides access to the Tulsa metropolitan area, 
     McClellan Kerr Navigational System, and several recreational 
     areas in eastern Oklahoma. SH 51 is also nationally 
     significant because it connects with I-44, I-244, the 
     Muskogee Turnpike, US 412, and other major routes in the 
     eastern section of Oklahoma.
       11. Has the proposed project encountered, or is it likely 
     to encounter, any significant opposition or other obstacles 
     based on environmental or other types of concerns?
       Response to No. 11: The environmental clearance has been 
     completed on this project. However, a reassessment is likely. 
     We do not anticipate any major opposition or other obstacles 
     that will delay construction of this project.
       12. Describe the economic, energy efficiency, 
     environmental, congestion mitigation and safety benefits 
     associated with completion of the project.
       Response to No. 12: Widening SH 51 to a 4 lane highway will 
     increase capacity, promote tourism and economic growth in the 
     region, and improve the safety and congestion along this 
     major highway serving the eastern region of Oklahoma.
       13. Has the project received funding through the State's 
     Federal-aid highway apportionment, or in the case of a 
     transit project, through Federal Transit Administration 
     funding? If no, why not?
       Response to No. 13: During the past few years the State has 
     expended in excess of $34,000,000.00 to improve this corridor 
     between I-44 in Tulsa and the Arkansas State Line. However, 
     because the overall critical needs of the entire highway 
     system far exceeds the limited funding levels, this project 
     from Coweta to Wagoner has not received funding through the 
     State's Federal-aid highway apportionments.
       14. Is the authorization requested for the project an 
     increase to an amount previously authorized or appropriated 
     for it in federal statute (if so, please identify the 
     statute, the amount provided, and the amount obligated to 
     date), or would this be the first authorization for the 
     project in federal statute? If the authorization requested is 
     for a transit project, has it previously received 
     appropriations and/or received a Letter of Intent or entered 
     into a Full Funding Grant Agreement with the FTA?
       Response to No. 14: This is the first authorization we have 
     requested for this project.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, March 10, 1997.
     Hon. Bud Shuster,
     Chairman, House Committee on Transportation, Rayburn House 
         Office Building.
     Hon. Thomas Petri,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Rayburn 
         House Office Building.
     Hon. Jim Oberstar,
     Ranking Democratic Member, House Committee on Transportation, 
         Rayburn House Office Building.
     Hon. Nick Rahall,
     Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee on Surface 
         Transportation, Rayburn House Office Building.
       Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Members: On February 25, 
     1997, the North Carolina Delegation forwarded to your 
     attention copies of the State of North Carolina's highway 
     transportation project priorities.
       Included in this package, there were two funding requests 
     that are of particular concern to our districts, the Ninth 
     and Twelfth Districts of North Carolina. These requests 
     regarded funding for construction of the Eastern and Western 
     Outer Loops in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. 
     The completion of the Outer Loop is the foremost road 
     priority for our region during consideration of 
     transportation funding this year. The purpose of this letter 
     is to formally inform you of our strong support for this 
     critical transportation need for the City of Charlotte.
       We thank you in advance for your consideration of this 
     request. Please do not hesitate to contact either of us if we 
     can provide you with further information regarding the Outer 
     Loop project.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Sue Myrick,
                                               Member of Congress.
                                                      Melvin Watt,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                  Washington, DC, August 20, 1997.
     Chairman Bud Shuster,
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Shuster: We are writing to express our strong 
     support for the I-40 cross bridge project, which was 
     submitted to the Surface Transportation Subcommittee in 
     February. This project is important not only to the State of 
     Oklahoma, but also to the Nation.
       The I-40 cross bridge is in a critical state of disrepair. 
     There are serious safety concerns surrounding the continued 
     use of this bridge. Due to these concerns Oklahoma inspects 
     this particular bridge every six months; other bridges are 
     inspected only once every two years.
       It is critical to the State and to the Nation that this 
     bridge remains open. Recently, the Oklahoma Department of 
     Transportation determined that approximately 102,000 cars 
     cross this bridge every day. Furthermore, 61% of all the 
     trucks that cross this bridge are out of state trucks. 
     Clearly, this bridge is heavily traveled by more than just 
     Oklahomans.
       Both the Governor of Oklahoma and the Secretary of 
     Transportation have endorsed this project and have made it 
     the number one transportation priority for the State of 
     Oklahoma. Unfortunately, due to the magnitude of the project, 
     Oklahoma does not have the funds to tackle it at this time.
       We are committed to working with our state officials to 
     ensure that this project receive the attention and funding it 
     needs. We would greatly appreciate your consideration of the 
     merits of this project. The I-40 cross bridge is indeed vital 
     to both Oklahoma and the overall interstate system. Please 
     let us know if we can provide you with additional 
     information.
           Sincerely,
     Rep. J.C. Watts, Jr.
     Rep. Ernest Istook, Jr.
     Rep. Steve Largent.
     Rep. Frank Lucas.
     Rep. Wes Watkins.
     Rep. Tom Coburn.

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

                          ____________________