[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 61 (Tuesday, May 14, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2406-H2413]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    HIGHWAY FUNDING RESTORATION ACT

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 3694) to provide for highway infrastructure 
investment at the guaranteed funding level contained in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3694

       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 ``Highway Funding Restoration 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION CEILING.

       Section 1102 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
     Century (23 U.S.C. 104 note; 112 Stat. 115, 113 Stat. 1753) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Restoration of Obligation Limitation for Fiscal Year 
     2003.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for fiscal 
     year 2003, the obligations for Federal-aid highway and 
     highway safety construction programs that are subject to the 
     obligation limitation set forth in subsection (a)(6)--
       ``(1) shall be not less than $27,746,000,000; and
       ``(2) shall be distributed in accordance with this 
     section.''.

     SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF OBLIGATION CEILING.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the adjustment 
     made pursuant to section 1102(h) of the Transportation Equity 
     Act for the 21st Century for fiscal year 2003 shall be deemed 
     to be zero.

     SEC. 4. ADJUSTMENTS TO GUARANTEE FUNDING LEVELS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all adjustments 
     made pursuant to section 251(b)(1)(B) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to the highway 
     category and to section 8103(a)(5) of the Transportation 
     Equity Act for the 21st Century for fiscal year 2003 shall be 
     deemed to be zero. This section shall apply immediately to 
     all reports issued pursuant to section 254 of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 for fiscal 
     year 2003, including the discretionary sequestration preview 
     report.

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET 
                   AUTHORITY.

       It is the sense of Congress that the revenue aligned budget 
     authority provision in section 251(b)(1)(B) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 should be 
     amended in the future to more accurately align highway 
     spending with highway revenues while maintaining 
     predictability and stability in highway funding levels.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR HIGHWAY PROJECTS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, projects and 
     activities designated on pages 82 through 92 of House Report 
     107-308 shall be eligible for fiscal year 2002 funds made 
     available for the program for which each project or activity 
     is so designated.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each 
will control 20 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, I rise in support of H.R. 3694, the 
Highway Funding Restoration Act. This bipartisan bill has 316 
cosponsors in the House of Representatives and the other body companion 
measure, S. 1917, is cosponsored by 74 Members of that body.
  I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), 
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, for his support for the 
restoration of highway funding. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) 
included in the House budget resolution a provision for the outlay of 
these funds. I support enforcement of the budget resolution adopted by 
the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I am working with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) 
to address in the future a better method of calculating the Revenue 
Aligned Budget Authority, which we refer to as RABA. We need to more 
accurately align highway spending with highway revenues, while 
maintaining predictability and stability in highway funding levels.
  There is a clear and strong consensus that H.R. 3694 is the right 
approach to restore proposed cuts to Federal-aid highway funding in the 
fiscal year 2003 budget.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3694 restores not less than $4.4 billion to the 
Federal-aid highway construction programs for fiscal year 2003, and 
ensures that these funds will be spent according to the formula 
established by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 
otherwise called TEA-21.
  I am pleased that the leadership of the House has agreed to this 
expedited process. I am confident that the Senate will also take timely 
action on the bill before the fiscal year 2003 appropriations cycle is 
well underway.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is vitally necessary for three reasons. First, 
State Departments of Transportation cannot absorb the proposed cut of 
$8.5 billion below the level of funding received in the fiscal year of 
2002, a 27 percent program reduction.
  Second, transportation spending keeps people employed. More than 
180,000 family-wage jobs are associated with the $4.4 billion funding 
restoration in this bill.
  Third, cash balances in the Highway Trust Fund, the dedicated revenue 
source for highway and transit construction, are sufficient to 
accommodate this funding restoration.
  Again, I want to thank the full committee ranking member, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Petri), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit; 
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the subcommittee 
ranking member, along with the full membership of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, and all of the other 242 Members of 
the House urging immediate passage of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I cannot stress enough the importance of this 
bill. It does restore the funding level where it should be to build our 
highways so that we can keep the 180,000 people employed and, more than 
that, increase the infrastructure necessities in this country and keep 
them on the right track.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the distinguished ranking 
member of the full committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), for his hard work in this measure. I also want to commend 
our chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.

[[Page H2407]]

Young), and our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Petri), for this excellent piece of legislation; and I rise in 
strong support of H.R. 3694, the Highway Funding Restoration Act.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the most important measures this House has passed 
in recent times was TEA 21, and in TEA 21 we were able to increase the 
amount of spending for our highways by over 40 percent and for transit 
by over 46 percent. We did that because, A, we worked together. This is 
the best committee in the whole House in my view for working in a 
bipartisan manner for the good of this country. We did that by 
capturing all the gasoline taxes that were sent out by the people of 
this country to Washington to use for transportation for its intended 
purpose. We had firewalls erected to protect that spending, and we came 
up with the revenue aligned budget authority, better known as RABA.
  This process is important to make sure and to ensure that all 
incoming gas tax receipts are applied to transportation infrastructure 
spending, a core principle that members of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure strongly support. Based on RABA 
calculations for the fiscal year 2003, the President's fiscal year 2003 
budget proposes to cut funding for the Federal aid highway program by 
$8.6 billion or 27 percent. A cut of this magnitude would be absolutely 
devastating to State and local transportation programs.
  The administration claims that TEA 21 required these cuts; and, Mr. 
Speaker, that simply is not true. TEA 21's guaranteed highway 
investment level as reflected in the President's budget is a floor, not 
a ceiling. The administration could have and should have requested 
more.
  The committee bill proposes to increase fiscal year 2003 funding by 
at least $4.4 billion to $27.7 billion, the level authorized in TEA 21. 
This bill accomplishes the following: it protects 180,000 family wage 
construction jobs; promotes economic recovery through the proven 
infusion of funds and of proven infrastructure programs; and helps 
compensate for the drastic and disruptive swing in highway funding in 
fiscal year 2003. Moreover, the additional funds are completely paid 
for with funds already in the highway trust funds. The fund has an 18 
to $20 billion balance that can easily accommodate this and can only be 
used for highway and transit programs.
  In addition, and as important to providing increased funding for 
fiscal year 2003, the bill provides a higher budget baseline for which 
to measure next year's reauthorization bill. A higher baseline will 
improve our ability to increase highway spending in the bill 
reauthorizing TEA 21.
  Mr. Speaker, the committee bill has strong bipartisan support in the 
House with 317 members co-sponsoring the introduced bill. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill before us, H.R. 
3694, the Highway Funding Restoration Act. It is a bipartisan bill as 
we have heard, and I look forward to its passage this afternoon.
  We are moving this bill today as part of an agreement with the 
leadership in the Committee on Appropriations to ensure proper levels 
of highway spending under the budget firewalls in the coming year.
  The supplemental appropriations bill that will soon be considered by 
the House will also include language addressing the guaranteed levels 
of spending as agreed to by the two committees. By declaring the 
revenue aligned budget authority, which is in the committee known as 
RABA, calculation for budget year 2003 to be zero, H.R. 3694 restores 
not less than $4.4 billion for the Federal aid highway program. This is 
consistent with funding levels that were contemplated when TEA 21 was 
passed back in 1998, and it ensures that the funding will be spent 
according to the rules set forth in the Transportation Equity Act for 
the 21st century, TEA 21.
  With 317 co-sponsors in the House and 74 of the companion bill in the 
Senate, H.R. 3694 has strong bipartisan support. The administration's 
2003 budget proposal cut funding for the highway program by 27 percent. 
State highway programs cannot absorb a cut of this significance, nor 
can the economy of our country. The potential employment loss created 
by a cut of this magnitude could be as high as 180,000 family-wage 
jobs. As the economy climbs out of this short recession, the loss of 
this many jobs is unacceptable. And it is important to note that the 
highway trust fund with a cash balance of $20 billion can sustain this 
spending.
  The trust fund is comprised of dedicated revenues paid by highway 
users that can only be used for highway and transit projects.
  Finally, as part of the agreement between the two committees, we have 
agreed to include technical changes requested by the Committee on 
Appropriations regarding project funding. Certain projects from the 
budget year 2002 Transportation Appropriations Act have been found by 
the Department of Transportation to be ineligible for funding under 
Federal aid highway guidelines.
  As Members may know, I was one who was very concerned by the actions 
of the Committee on Appropriations last year and trusts that we will 
not see a repeat this year. But in the spirit of the agreement and 
securing the additional needed funds, a provision making those projects 
eligible is included here today.
  Mr. Speaker, restoring the highway funds under the firewall is 
supported by our Nation's governors, our mayors, industry and labor 
interests alike. I join with our chairman, the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young), full committee ranking member, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit 
committee ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), 
and the more than 300 co-sponsors and supporting H.R. 3694, and I urge 
its immediate passage.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for 
yielding me time. I thank the gentleman and the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young), as well as our subcommittee chair and ranking members, for 
working so well and so closely together to bring this bill to the floor 
today.
  One thing we have enough money for in this time of war-time 
priorities, this time of recession is to continue to builds our roads 
and bridges. Thank goodness for the trust fund. Have trust in the trust 
fund. It would be absurd to let the technicality of a flawed formula 
keep us from doing what we always do in times of recession: we build 
and we make jobs.
  We are told, of course, that we are coming out of a recession. Well, 
I want someone to tell that to the 8.6 million Americans who are 
jobless. I want you to look at our unemployment rates: February, 5.5 
percent; March, 5.7 percent; April, 6 percent. Surely Congress can do 
more with rising unemployment than make it worse.
  We have heard about stimulus all last year. This is the stimulus 
bill. That is what this bill is, and it would destimulate the economy 
if we were to pull it. Remember, we are not restoring what we had hoped 
to achieve, but only what we guaranteed to achieve.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the job loss by State if there 
were an $8.6 billion cut in the Highway trust fund, Mr. Speaker.

 TABLE 2.--FY 2003 FEDERAL HIGHWAY FUNDS AND EMPLOYMENT LOSS RESULTING FROM $8.6 BILLION HIGHWAY INVESTMENT CUT
                                                       \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FY 2002 highway    Est. FY 2003     FY 2003 highway   Employment
                    State                        program funds     program funds    funds lost \2\     loss \3\
------------------------------------------------------\2\---------------\2\-------------------------------------
Alabama......................................      $561,369,840      $421,025,208     -$140,344,632       -5,894
Alaska.......................................       314,796,052       246,539,742       -68,256,310       -2,867

[[Page H2408]]

 
Arizona......................................       486,224,631       365,140,719      -121,083,912       -5,086
Arkansas.....................................       362,652,003       275,455,607       -87,196,396       -3,662
California...................................     2,517,465,102     1,899,291,678       -18,173,424      -25,963
Colorado.....................................       353,164,878       265,780,999       -87,383,879       -3,670
Connecticut..................................       408,920,297       313,495,052       -95,425,245       -4,008
Delaware.....................................       119,922,416        91,097,545       -28,824,871       -1,211
Dist. of Col.................................       110,273,846        81,398,200       -28,875,646       -1,213
Florida......................................     1,289,548,451       974,165,577      -315,382,874      -13,246
Georgia......................................       988,693,630       745,903,153      -242,790,477      -10,197
Hawaii.......................................       142,271,252       106,770,543       -35,500,709       -1,491
Idaho........................................       211,278,292       160,135,462       -51,142,830       -2,148
Illinois.....................................       933,065,783       697,096,259      -235,969,524       -9,911
Indiana......................................       638,900,893       486,743,971      -152,156,922       -6,391
Iowa.........................................       329,542,978       247,574,819       -81,968,159       -3,443
Kansas.......................................       324,857,477       241,313,125       -83,544,352       -3,509
Kentucky.....................................       483,920,664       362,099,979      -121,820,685       -5,116
Louisiana....................................       433,579,090       330,471,089      -103,108,001       -4,331
Maine........................................       147,088,238       109,890,629       -37,197,609       -1,562
Maryland.....................................       446,350,792       339,318,294      -107,032,498       -4,495
Massachusetts................................       514,207,475       387,835,987      -126,371,488       -5,308
Michigan.....................................       894,938,840       673,029,684      -221,909,156       -9,320
Minnesota....................................       408,448,438       309,125,401       -99,323,037       -4,172
Mississippi..................................       355,307,069       268,482,622       -86,824,447       -3,647
Missouri.....................................       646,930,635       488,228,184      -158,702,451       -6,666
Montana......................................       266,187,164       204,791,716       -61,395,448       -2,579
Nebraska.....................................       216,342,091       159,818,713       -56,523,378       -2,374
Nevada.......................................       199,134,908       149,455,313       -49,679,595       -2,087
New Hampshire................................       140,217,067       107,247,956       -32,969,111       -1,385
New Jersey...................................       724,639,854       541,582,536      -183,057,318       -7,688
New Mexico...................................       268,593,028       203,825,094       -64,767,934       -2,720
New York.....................................     1,410,507,671     1,064,982,917      -345,524,754      -14,512
North Carolina...............................       776,521,747       584,307,329      -192,214,418       -8,073
North Dakota.................................       179,364,937       134,932,708       -44,432,229       -1,866
Ohio.........................................       959,669,321       725,512,146      -234,157,175       -9,835
Oklahoma.....................................       428,337,012       318,248,522      -110,088,490       -4,624
Oregon.......................................       337,801,111       255,489,120       -82,311,991       -3,457
Pennsylvania.................................     1,391,790,146     1,045,698,054      -346,092,092      -14,536
Rhode Island.................................       164,112,784       123,469,448       -40,643,336       -1,707
South Carolina...............................       461,162,748       350,138,781      -111,023,967       -4,663
South Dakota.................................       198,817,128       150,819,598       -47,997,530       -2,016
Tennessee....................................       624,496,977       476,815,649      -147,681,328       -6,203
Texas........................................     2,146,259,084     1,614,117,018      -532,143,066      -22,350
Utah.........................................       216,504,854       161,358,980       -55,145,874       -2,316
Vermont......................................       124,155,175        94,175,207       -29,979,968       -1,259
Virginia.....................................       710,248,118       544,143,511      -166,104,607       -6,976
Washington...................................       493,771,495       368,381,629      -125,389,866       -5,266
West Virginia................................       308,059,534       234,857,433       -73,202,101       -3,074
Wisconsin....................................       545,548,760       410,919,572      -134,629,188       -5,654
Wyoming......................................       188,997,682       143,820,077       -45,177,605       -1,897
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------
      State Total............................    27,904,959,458    21,056,318,555    -6,848,640,903     -287,643
Allocated programs...........................     3,894,144,542     2,148,468,445    -1,745,676,097      -73,318
      Grand Total............................    31,799,104,000    23,204,787,000    -8,594,317,000     -360,961
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $80 million reduction due to proposed transfer to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
\2\ Source: FHWA 2/4/02 Comparison of Estimated FY 2003 Distribution of Obligation Limitation and . . .
  President's Budget.
\3\ Employment loss is spread of 7 years, with most loss occurring in 2003 and 2004.
Current Balance in Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund: $18,855,632,135.

  Mr. Speaker, I indicate that we are not putting the whole thing back. 
It is 4.4 billion because that is all they had a right to expect. They 
did not have the right to expect that we would exceed it. They had a 
right to expect what we guaranteed them when we passed TEA 21. But if 
we did what the administration wanted, it would be a grand total of 
360,961 jobs lost. Nobody wants to do that in this Congress.
  Interrupting highway construction would have a particularly chaotic 
effect on States which are having to cut every other program. They now 
have to cannibalize some highway projects in order to finish others. It 
would exacerbate the budget cutting already going on in every State of 
the Union; and, worse, it would reduce the baseline next year when we 
reauthorize the surface transportation bill. In other words, we would 
hurt the past because we are trying to catch up. We would hurt the 
present and we would hurt the future.
  We are getting somewhere in infrastructure. I can remember just a few 
years ago we were sliding back so badly that we wondered if we would 
ever catch up. We are catching up. This is no time to turn around and 
go down the road to deeper unemployment and to infrastructure damage. 
Thanks for all involved to help us keep moving ahead.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to address one thing that has been brought 
up by the previous speakers. I do believe this is, in fact, a stimulus 
package. It is not as large as we would like to have it. There has also 
been mention, though, about the President's budget cut, and I will have 
to say that is true; but I also say I have been under seven Presidents 
since I have been in this body, probably one more than my good friend, 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Under our Constitution the President, regardless of what party, has 
the responsibility to submit a budget. And as I tell every constituent 
that comes into our office, that is his responsibility. But it is our 
responsibility as a House of the people to write the budget. We write 
the budget. We raise the money for it from the people, and we designate 
how it shall be spent. That is our role. I am extremely pleased that 
317 Members of this Congress decided in this case that it was more 
important to, in fact, restore the guaranteed money for the 
construction of highways and bridges and improving our highway system 
than we were to take the recommendation of another branch of this great 
government of ours. But I never hold it against any one of the 
Presidents for that responsibility of submitting the budget.
  It makes us do our work a little bit more efficiently and a little 
bit better. As I mentioned in my opening statement, a whole lot of 
other people, including the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), has 
recognized the importance of the construction of a highway system 
within this great Nation of ours. We have just begun. We have rail to 
improve. We have, again, air to improve. We have shipping ports to 
improve. And the responsibility of the committee, which is totally 
bipartisan, the responsibility of that committee is to make sure that 
the people of America recognize the importance of a modern 
transportation system being put in place for the future. And I would 
just like to say this is one tiny infant step in the right direction.
  We must continue that as we reauthorize TEA 21, as we go forth with 
new rail legislation, as we go forth with other legislation packages 
and that we will do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H2409]]

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say I concur 
with my distinguished chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I too rise to support H.R. 3694 and to thank the 
chairman and the full committee ranking member and the subcommittee 
chairman and ranking member for their leadership to put forward the 
Highway Funding Restoration Act.
  I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation and am proud of the 
bipartisan way the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has 
worked together to bring this bill to the floor.
  This bill will restore $373 million for highway projects in 
California and allow projects we desperately need to move forward, 
including adding carpool lanes to I-680/80, widening Highway 4, and 
developing the Oakland Airport interconnector.
  This does not replace all the money President Bush cut from 
California's transportation budget, but it is a good first step. It 
also translates to saving more than 15,000 good-paying jobs across our 
State. Commuters in the Bay Area face some of the worst congestion in 
the country, and we are also facing a sluggish economy.
  Now is not the time to be cutting Federal funding for highway 
projects. This bill will fund California's section of the highway 
account at $2.3 billion for the next year. While this amount was 
authorized in TEA 21 for the next year, it is not sufficient to meet 
California's needs. I will continue to push for more money to be used 
from the trust fund which has $18 billion in cash just sitting in it.
  In addition to restoring money, this bill reasserts the integrity of 
the budget firewalls in TEA 21 and the realigned budget authority 
mechanism called RABA. These provisions will ensure that local 
communities can plan transportation projects knowing that the Federal 
Government will be a predictable partner throughout the life of a 
project.
  Every community in America depends on transportation to keep its 
people and local economy moving. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill and keep America's transportation improvements on track.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of yielding to the next gentleman, I 
will yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), but I just 
wanted to point out that the gentleman was the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit in the last Congress when we 
authorized TEA 21. I want to acknowledge the superb role the gentleman 
played in the crafting of that legislation and the many hours of 
personal endeavor he gave to the crafting of what became known as TEA 
21, and his solid grasp of the issues that we fought over in this body 
and in the conference.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Rahall).

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) and our ranking member on the full Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure for yielding me the time and for his 
very kind words. I also join in commending the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young), the chairman, for his leadership; the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member; the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking subcommittee member; and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the ranking subcommittee 
chairman, for their leadership, not only in bringing this legislation 
to the floor but for last year's invaluable leadership, the last time 
we did TEA-21, for their leadership in that regard as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that H.R. 3694, the Highway Funding 
Restoration Act, does have broad bipartisan support. It will restore, 
as we have heard, at least $4.4 billion to the Federal aid to highway 
program from the amount the administration had requested. These brutal 
cuts would have sucked the life out of our highway program in southern 
West Virginia.
  Keeping our new highway construction and existing road improvements 
on track is our number one need at this moment. This vital work saves 
lives and brings new jobs, especially in the southern part of West 
Virginia, as we are once again experiencing the devastating effects of 
floods that have ravaged through our area in the last couple of weeks.
  We have $18 billion sitting in the Highway Trust Fund. If anything, 
we need to pour more of it into building the roads our people 
desperately need, not less. Today, we will set a funding level of $21.7 
billion for fiscal year 2003. This will help to ensure that each of the 
50 States gets the highway funding they need so they will not have to 
resort to postponing or canceling highway projects.
  In West Virginia, we are working on many highway projects to enable 
our citizens to participate in interstate commerce and to open up West 
Virginia to new business opportunities, including the Coalfields 
Expressway, the King Coal Highway and upgrading the safety of Route 10.
  The West Virginia DOT cannot afford to lose Federal funds necessary 
to plan, build and maintain these roads. I know the DOTs in the other 
49 States will say the same thing about their highway projects. That is 
why we have such broad support for this legislation, not only from 
Members of Congress, but from State governments, highway groups and 
others around the country.
  When we wrote TEA-21, we guaranteed a minimum level of spending in 
the Federal aid to highway program. H.R. 3694 will ensure that the 
budgetary firewalls are protected. In addition, this bill restores the 
obligation limits for fiscal year 2003 so Federal highway spending will 
not be less than $27.7 billion.
  In West Virginia, we have been working to build jobs through 
transportation. We also have a strong transportation research center at 
the Rahall Appalachian Transportation Institute at Marshall University 
in Huntington, West Virginia, which is one of the University 
Transportation Centers we established in TEA-21.
  The bill we will pass today will restore $4.4 billion to the Federal 
aid highway program. It will protect 180,000 family wage construction 
jobs. In West Virginia, we will see $45.9 million restored and 3,074 
jobs protected.
  We have 317 bipartisan cosponsors of this legislation because of the 
tremendous leadership of Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar and 
because each Member realizes how vital a guaranteed highway funding 
level is to their respective States in order to secure constituents' 
jobs in the highway construction industry and to promote a healthy 
economy.
  Again, I ask for enactment of this legislation and commend the 
leadership on both sides of the House.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  The role of a chairman, Mr. Speaker, is to lead and our chairman of 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on this legislation 
and on many others has led. As soon as we got word of the budget 
language and the prospective cut, without waiting to see the actual 
document, the chairman sprang into action. We joined forces, as we do 
on this committee and as we are known almost legendarily in the House, 
on a bipartisan basis, to rectify the wrong.
  The chairman was quite right in pointing out that, I choose to say, 
with all the Presidents with whom we have served, not under. We are a 
coequal branch. This is not new. Cutting highway funds started with 
President Lyndon Johnson in 1968 on the recommendation of the same gang 
that did one, the then Bureau of the Budget, that said we need to cut 
funds in order to dampen inflation, build up a bit of a surplus to 
offset the burgeoning surplus at the beginning of the Vietnam War, and 
as the chairman observed, it is an old dictum that the President 
proposes but the Congress disposes.
  As astute and an early observer as Edmund Burke, the noted British 
historian, political science writer, a century ago observed that a 
presidential budget in the hands of a strong Speaker is worth little 
more than the paper on which the words are written. Well, we intend to 
do what Burke observed,

[[Page H2410]]

to assure that those are just simply numbers on paper and that the 
intent of TEA-21 is carried out.
  It will restore $4.4 billion of the President's 27 percent cut in the 
Federal aid highway program. Important for a number of reasons, as 
other speakers have noted, this cut itself will, or this restoration 
will affect 180,000 jobs, but the original budget cut proposed would 
affect 360,000 jobs over the next 5 years. Worse, it will result in a 
budget surplus in the Highway Trust Fund of $34 billion and extend it 
out over a decade. It will reach a nearly $80 billion surplus in the 
Highway Trust Fund.
  By way of comparison when we started with TEA-21 in January of 1998, 
there was a $29 billion surplus in the Highway Trust Fund. We would be 
going backward. In fact, if we do not make this restoration the last 
year of funding for TEA-21 will be less than the first year of TEA-21. 
That is not the direction in which the American people want this 
country to move or expect this committee to move in.
  We do not establish a ceiling for the highway program. The bill says 
highway funding should be at least $27.7 billion. That is the minimum, 
and as the process goes forward, I hope we will be able to restore even 
more than that as we get into the final process of the budget and the 
supplemental appropriations bill with the other body.
  The Highway Trust Fund now can support $30 billion in outlays. By the 
end of this process, I hope we will have achieved an outcome that 
expends every last penny of that Highway Trust Fund. We did not just do 
this as an accident when we crafted TEA-21. That was a hard fought bill 
here on this floor till 2:30 in the morning on the budget process in 
1997, and then all the way through the committee and into 1998, and we 
had an overwhelming vote, and then we went to conference and we had a 
2-month conference with the United States Senate. Every piece of that 
legislation was fought through.
  The other body did not want to have a guaranteed account. The other 
body did not want to have the levels of authorization that we set forth 
in what became TEA-21, and this committee, standing for this body, 
fought for the guaranteed account and for the revenue adjusted budget 
authority, and we got it in there. We cannot let a presidential or OMB 
dictum take it away from us and from the people of this country.
  The extraordinary history of TEA-21 has been that in the 42 years of 
the interstate highway program we invested $114 billion of Federal 
funds to build the 44,000-mile interstate highway system. In 4\1/2\ 
years of TEA-21, we invested $114 billion. We did in 4\1/2\ years what 
it took 42 years of the interstate highway program, and in the process 
we created 1\1/2\ million new jobs, the good jobs, the jobs that buy 
the homes and buy the cars and buy the household appliances and put the 
kids through school, jobs that have sustained the economic expansion of 
the last 7 years, until it hit the body with that recession that we are 
trying to creep out of.
  The Highway Trust Fund is a dedicated account. It cannot be used for 
any other purpose. It can only be used for highway and transit funding. 
It can support more funding, and when we crafted TEA-21, we knew that 
the year-by-year levels that we authorized would be less than what 
could be spent. So we provided an additional $15 billion of 
authorizations over and above the amount specified year by year.
  There is enough in the Highway Trust Fund now. There is a surplus of 
roughly $20 billion, and let us acknowledge that maybe 6 or $7 billion 
of that is already spoken for by forward funding of the States, but 
there is enough in there to support the level of funding that we 
authorized for this coming fiscal year for TEA-21, and we ought to do 
it. We ought to do it because if we for no other reason, the cost of 
congestion, the congestion tax in just 68 major metropolitan areas of 
the United States is $78 billion last year as verified by the Texas 
Transportation Institute in its report on congestion.
  This is a bargain, $8.6 billion restored or $4.4 billion that we are 
trying to do in this bill. That is a bargain to help buy down the cost 
of congestion.
  A key element of this bill is a sense of Congress that we will work 
together in a reauthorization to ensure that the revenue alignment 
mechanism of RABA is fine-tuned to more accurately align highway fund 
spending with highway revenues so as to have greater predictability and 
stability in highway funding.
  I understand also that our chairman, gentleman from Alaska, has 
reached an agreement with the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations to attach the language of this bill to the supplemental 
appropriations bill instead of language that would have declared that 
the RABA mechanism shall have no force or effect. Now that is very 
serious language that would have had a very, very bad effect, and I 
think striking that language and supplanting our bill is a good 
agreement.
  That agreement also has a dark side, and the dark side is that we 
also have to agree to authorize projects that were earmarked in the 
Transportation Appropriations Act this fiscal year that are ineligible 
for funding. I do not want to debate the merits of those particular 
projects, but I just want to focus on process.
  This is an example of legislative process that is spinning out of 
control. In the last several years we have moved away from deliberative 
consideration of legislation, including transportation appropriations 
bills.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The time of the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has expired. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) has 12 minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) for his generosity.
  Two-thirds of the Members of this body did not serve in this body in 
prior years when there were different rules that now are routinely 
waived. We had transportation appropriations conference reports 
submitted to us at 7 a.m. on the day the bill is to be considered 2 
hours later, no time for the staff of the majority or the minority to 
evaluate what is in those bills. Members were lucky if they saw a copy, 
let alone have an idea of what was in it.
  Similarly, the other body no longer passes appropriation bills with 
numbered amendments, so that when they come over here from conference 
there is no opportunity to stand up and challenge a particular numbered 
amendment in an appropriation bill.
  In 1993, Chairman Natcher of the Committee on Appropriations brought 
the transportation appropriation conference report with 63 amendments 
in disagreement. We could challenge each one of those. We no longer can 
do that.

                              {time}  1615

  We no longer even have the time to consider in appropriate fashion 
what has been sent from the other body, whether in a conference report 
or otherwise.
  Now we ought to know before we vote what we are voting on. We should 
know that bills that earmark interstate highway funds for projects that 
are not on the interstate are pending before us; we ought to know that 
the bill before us commits public lands funds for projects that do not 
involve Federal lands; that scenic byway funds are for a project that 
is not on a scenic byway; that bridge replacement funds are dedicated 
to a project that does not replace a bridge.
  We are in the position in this committee of voting without having an 
opportunity to know what we are voting on and, therefore, to object to 
what we are voting on. We need to restore the deliberative process to 
this body's consideration of appropriation bills.
  I know that I speak for myself, I know I speak for the Members on the 
Democratic side, and I know that I express the frustration that the 
chairman and members of our committee on the majority side have as 
well. Let us restore a deliberative process so that we can do the 
public's business in a fair and effective way.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding this 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the statements of my good friend, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), are absolutely true. I am hoping we can 
convince the

[[Page H2411]]

leadership on this side of the aisle, and, of course, the leadership on 
that side of the aisle, that what is sent to us from the other body in 
the waning hours of any session has been done inappropriately and that 
we have to have the time to make sure we are actually following the 
proper procedure and that we do not rush to leave this body and leave, 
very frankly, some things done inappropriately, as were done last year 
in October, because we do have to rectify that now.
  I have let it be known to Members that went back to their districts 
and made statements of what they had achieved, and they had not 
achieved that, that I understand their dilemma. So this is a one-shot 
deal for them, and I hope everybody watching this in their office who 
are on that list makes sure they understand this is the only time they 
are going to get a chance to get projects agreed to, as it goes through 
our committee, or at least in consultation with the chairman and 
myself, and of course the ranking member. Because that is the 
appropriate way to do it.
  The other body, the only way we can control that body is to reject 
what they send to us, and that takes a great deal of courage. I am 
hoping we have the courage to say no, not until we take the time to do 
what is right legislatively, with a great deal of deliberation, and the 
ability to do the job that we have been elected to do. This has been 
going on now for about 4 or 5 years, and I think it is time the House 
stands up and says no, this is not going to happen, you are not going 
to send us a great big bill, bigger than that room itself, and not know 
what is in it.
  My staff and myself have spent time, primarily my staff, and I will 
admit that, just researching what was done last year to find out what 
projects were put in that were not authorized and, very frankly, took 
monies from projects that were authorized; and we do not think that is 
the correct way to go.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. 
Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for not only 
yielding me this time, but for his leadership on this issue, and I also 
commend the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar).
  I just simply rise in support of this bill, H.R. 3694, because this 
bill, the Highway Funding Restoration Act, is going to restore no less 
than $66.5 million in highway funding in my State of Maryland, and that 
is going to represent 2,725 jobs. So I urge passage of the bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record an exchange 
of letters between the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), Chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget, which I referred to earlier.
         U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on 
           Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                      Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.
     Hon. Jim Nussle,
     Chairman, Committee on Budget, Cannon Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of May 2, 
     2002, regarding H.R. 3694, the Highway Funding Restoration 
     Act and for your willingness to waive consideration of 
     provisions in the bill that fall within your Committee's 
     jurisdiction under House Rules.
       I agree that your waiving consideration of relevant 
     provisions of H.R. 3694 does not waive your Committee's 
     jurisdiction over the bill. I also acknowledge your right to 
     seek conferees on any provisions that are under your 
     Committee's jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference 
     on H.R. 3694 or similar legislation, and will support your 
     request for conferees on such provisions.
       As you request, your letter and this response will be 
     included in the committee report on the legislation as well 
     the Congressional Record during consideration on the House 
     Floor.
       Thank you for your cooperation in moving this important 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Don Young,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                                      Committee on the Budget,

                                      Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Young: On May 1, 2002 the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure ordered reported H.R. 3694, 
     the Highway Funding Restoration Act. At introduction, H.R. 
     3694 was referred solely to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure. In committee, however, an amendment was 
     adopted that added three new sections to the bill. Section 
     four, ``Adjustments to Guarantee Funding Levels,'' and 
     section five ``Sense of Congress Regarding Revenue Aligned 
     Budget Authority'' are within the primary jurisdiction of the 
     Budget committee. I want to thank you for working closely 
     with me to ensure that those provisions were acceptable to 
     the Budget Committee.
       Because of our close working relationship on this matter 
     and in order to expedite the consideration of H.R. 3694, I do 
     not intend to seek a sequential referral of the bill as 
     ordered reported. In not seeking a sequential referral of 
     H.R. 3694, the committee does not waive its jurisdiction or 
     its prerogatives over this legislation. The Budget Committee 
     also reserves its authority to seek conferees on H.R. 3694 or 
     a similar Senate bill with respect to provisions that are 
     within the committee's jurisdiction; and, I ask your 
     commitment to support any such request by the Budget 
     Committee.
       Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our 
     exchange of letters on this matter in your committee report 
     and in the Congressional Record during floor consideration. 
     Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Jim Nussle,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to state my enthusiastic 
support of H.R. 3694, the Highway Funding Restoration Act.
  First of all, I would like to salute the Chairman of the full 
Committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the Chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Highways & Transit, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Petri). Just as importantly, the leadership abilities of the 
ranking member of the full Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), and the ranking member of the Subcommittee, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), were important components in this 
entire process.
  I have been a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee since my first term, and things are no different now than in 
1983. Smart investments in our nation's infrastructure brings about 
national economic benefits. It's estimated that every dollar invested 
in our highway system yield $2.60 in economic benefits.
  As many of my colleagues in this body may know, the Administration's 
FY 2003 budget request would have reduced Federal-Aid highway funding 
to $23 billion down, which represents a dramatic decrease from FY 2002 
funding levels.
  Many of my colleagues were rightfully concerned at this funding 
request, and I shared those concerns. While $23 billion may sound like 
a lot of money and more than sufficient, the reality is much different. 
The real funding needs for our infrastructure already exceeds current 
funding levels by billions and billions. Needless to say, the proposed 
decrease would have caused potential transportation funding problems in 
every state and in every congressional district.
  For my home state of Illinois, under the proposed budget, we would 
have seen a decrease of $236 million in highway funds in FY 2003, and 
there would have been serious ramifications across Illinois. Highway 
and road projects across Illinois would have been adversely impacted. 
Just as importantly, it could have also meant the loss of 10,000 jobs--
jobs that we can ill afford to lose.
  By restoring the highway funds to the levels authorized under TEA 21, 
Illinois would have nearly $139 million restored, and by funding our 
transportation needs in a fiscally responsible fashion, we all win.
  I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 3694. With nearly 320 
cosponsors, it's clear to see that there is broad, bipartisan support 
for this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this important 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 3694, the Highway Funding Restoration Act. This important 
legislation restores critical funding for the Federal-Aid Highway 
Program.
  Upon enactment of TEA 21 in 1998, funding for the Federal-aid highway 
program was linked to highway user fee revenues deposited into the 
Highway Trust Fund. This was done partially by including a budgetary 
mechanism included in TEA 21 called Revenue Aligned Budget Authority 
(RABA), which adjusts the guaranteed amount of highway funding 
available to reflect the most recent estimates of Highway Trust Fund 
revenues.
  An unexpected downturn in highway revenues caused by the RABA 
provision of TEA 21 resulted in a decrease of an $8.6 billion or 27 
percent cut in highway funding in the President's FY 2003 budget 
proposal.
  H.R. 3694 restores billions of critical dollars for our state 
departments of transportation as they cannot be expected to absorb a 
cut of this magnitude in one year, especially at a time when State 
revenues are also declining. The 27 percent cut in highway funds 
proposed

[[Page H2412]]

in the president's Budget will decimate State transportation programs, 
delay efforts to decrease road congestion and deny the traveling public 
all of the benefits that would result from reduced congestion--
shortened travel times, increased productivity and economic growth, and 
improved safety.
  This shortfall will have a severe negative impact on New Mexico and 
will result in a decrease of $69 million for the New Mexico State 
Highway and Transportation Department. For many in the Intermountain 
West, it is not unheard of for people to commute 70 miles to and from 
work. As a result, the transportation on our roadways is absolutely 
crucial. A loss of $69 million will cause the postponement of several 
important highway construction projects, as well as reductions in money 
spent on road maintenance. In addition, it is projected that New Mexico 
will lose an estimated 2,700 jobs as a result of the shortfall.
  I am sure many other states will face similar funding and job losses 
if these monies are not restored for FY 03. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 3694 and avoid a devastating 
shortfall in state transportation budgets.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my full support to 
the passage of H.R. 3694, this is vital legislation, needed not just 
for our roads, bridges, and interchanges but also for our towns, our 
states, and our national economy.
  There is no doubt that our economy is not expanding as it was just a 
couple of years ago. Unemployment is at a six year high and consumer 
confidence is low. There is a way, however, to provide good jobs, 
expand commerce, and make lasting investments in our country and that 
is to restore highway funding.
  This year's budget has an $8.6 billion cut to federal-aid highways. 
The swings in our economy have translated into a wild swing in how we 
administer highway funding. Just last year, the Treasury Department 
predicted a $4.5 billion increase in funding levels, only to be faced 
with a $4.4 billion drop. We must now carefully choose our funding 
priorities.
  Without the restoration of this money we will only exacerbate the 
economic downturn. In my home state of Utah, where highway funding is 
at a premium, these cuts mean a $55 million dollar shortfall in roadway 
funds. This means the loss of jobs and contracts-over 3,000 jobs in 
Utah alone and 180,000 jobs across the country.
  Finally, we have already collected the taxes for the trust fund--it 
was paid by every person who filled a gas tank, rode a bus, or drove a 
car last year.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a short-term fix. While the idea of Revenue 
Aligned Budget Authority has worked well in the past, it is clear that 
we need to adjust the formula to prevent future cuts from happening.
  This is a uniquely bi-partisan and bi-camerae bill that will 
immediately help all of our constituents and ensure that we continue to 
make good sound investments and create good, well paying jobs.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of 
H.R. 3694, the Highway Funding Restoration Act.
  This Member would like to begin by commending the distinguished 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the Chairman of the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee, and the distinguished gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking Member of the Committee, for 
their hard work in bringing this bill to the Floor. With 317 
cosponsors, it is clear that the vast majority of House Members 
recognize the importance of H.R. 3694.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans who pay the gas tax at the pump expect those 
dollars to be used for roads and other transportation expenses, and 
they expect that the money will be made available promptly. Any budget 
decision to spend less on road construction and maintenance would be a 
bad fiscal decision as we attempt to move from an economic recession. 
It would be a serious mistake to cut infrastructure spending at this 
critical time.
  The bill would restore a minimum of $4.4 billion for highway programs 
in the budget. This would bring highway funding back to the level 
anticipated when the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
(TEA-21) was enacted. For the State of Nebraska, this legislation would 
result in the restoration of $32 million.
  The Highway Trust Fund contains a surplus of about $20 billion--money 
already paid in gas taxes. Motorists deserve to have these funds used 
expeditiously for transportation purposes, rather than to accumulate 
huge trust fund surpluses.
  Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of this bill, this Member urges 
his colleagues to support H.R. 3694.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
3694, the Highway Funding Restoration Act. This bill restores $4.4 
billion in transportation funding and brings us back to the TEA-21 
floor of $27.7 billion. It also ensures that this funding will be used 
to repair decrepit roads and bridges by placing it behind TEA-21's 
firewalls.
  Every state in America will be affected by the $8.8 billion reduction 
in highway funding proposed by President Bush. While the RABA formula 
was responsible for the large upswing in FY2002 and the large downturn 
in FY2003, we must continue to tie gas tax receipts to Trust Fund 
expenditures to ensure that surpluses are not kept artificially high 
for budgetary gimmicks.
  The President and this Congress have the authority to restore this 
critical funding, and I am pleased that we are here today to take the 
first step. H.R. 3694 sets a funding floor of $27.7 billion, a $4.4 
billion improvement over President Bush's budget proposal. However, I 
believe that we can and must do better.
  I understand that the Senate is considering doing somewhat better and 
restoring $5.7 billion. Such an increase can be sustained by the Trust 
Fund given the current $20 billion surplus and projected receipts. I 
urge the House to work with the other body to achieve at least that 
amount.
  The $8.8 billion reduction contained in the President's budget 
request would result in a $37 million decrease in funding for my state. 
H.R. 3694 restores about $22 million leaving a $15 million difference. 
Maine's transportation needs are significant, and the backlog of roads 
and bridges in need of repair continually grows. Harsh winter weather 
and extensive use by both tourists and heavy trucks take their toll on 
our roads.
  Currently, Maine needs to repair 4,000 miles of its estimated 8,300 
highway miles. In its biennial budget, only 200 of these miles can be 
repaired. At this rate Maine will finish its arterial highways in 8 
years, and major collectors in 34 years. That pace is obviously 
insufficient to maintain the safe and reliable transportation network 
that is crucial to my state's economic future.
  Closing the remaining $15 million deficit would allow the repair of 
approximately 30 additional miles. While this number may seem small, 30 
miles can be critical in providing safe access to rural Maine 
communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I also strongly support Section 6 of this bill which 
specifically authorizes 49 projects which encountered eligibility 
problems. Three of these projects are located in Maine. It is 
absolutely critical that this funding go forward to assist the 
communities of Brewer, Portland and Aroostook County.
  I want to reiterate that the funding level we are setting here today 
is a floor, not a ceiling. I am supporting this legislation as a first 
step in ensuring that the infrastructure needs of our communities in 
Maine and throughout the country can be met. I hope that we will work 
to go beyond this floor and restore the remaining funding that our 
states need and deserve.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 3694, the Highway Funding Restoration Act, critical legislation 
introduced by my friend and colleague, Mr. Young.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, under TEA-21, funding for the federal-aid 
highway program was linked to highway user fee revenues deposited into 
the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). This was achieved in part by a budgetary 
mechanism called RABA, the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority, which 
adjusts the guaranteed amount of highway funding available to reflect 
the most recent estimates of HTF revenues. Due to an unexpected 
downturn in highway revenues (attributable to a decline in gas, tire, 
and truck sales, and the overall economic recession), the President's 
FY 2003 budget proposed an $8.6 billion, or 27 percent cut in highway 
funding. H.R. 3694 restores $4.4 billion to the highway program (a 
return to TEA-21's FY 2003 levels), and preserves TEA-21 ``firewalls,'' 
ensuring that the additional money will be spent on highway projects.
  House passage of this legislation will send an important message that 
these funds will be available to states to continue work on vital 
transportation projects. TEA-21 was a huge win for Virginia, resulting 
in hundreds of millions of dollars more each year in federal aid for 
transportation projects. This funding meant progress in our fight 
against traffic congestion, enhanced highway safety, and thousands of 
jobs--good, family-wage jobs we can't afford to lose. Halting this 
progress by cutting funding 27 percent would be devastating to 
Virginia, to our local economies, and to the men and women whose 
livelihood depends on transportation-related projects.
  Many projects critical to the continued improvement of Virginia's 
transportation infrastructure are currently in the works or being 
planned--while many others are being set aside due to funding shortages 
at the state and local levels. In my Northern Virginia congressional 
district, safety, quality of life and the overall economy depend 
largely on maintaining TEA-21 funding. I urge my colleagues to join me 
in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3694, the Highway 
Funding Restoration Act and I want to thank Chairman

[[Page H2413]]

Young, Ranking Member Oberstar and my other colleagues from the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their leadership on 
this important bill. The President's proposed 2003 Budget cuts federal-
aid highway funding in my state of Tennessee by over $158 million. The 
loss of these funds will result in the layoffs of thousands of 
hardworking Tennesseans--approximately 6,000 lost jobs--as the state 
cuts back on bidding out projects at a time when we should be creating 
jobs, not eliminating them.
  This unprecedented cut will put the brakes on highway improvement 
projects not just in Tennessee, but throughout the country. After 
September 11th, we need to ensure adequate mobility for our national 
defense. The cuts offered by the President won't help our mobility and, 
in fact, stand to increase congestion and safety hazards for the 
motoring public. The state aid formula in TEA-21 was meant to establish 
a floor, not a ceiling, and the President is giving states the minimum 
at a time when the economy cries out for more investment in our 
transportation infrastructure.
  That is why we must rally to enact the Highway Funding Restoration 
Act and restore $4.4 billion for our highways. Of this amount, this 
measure would restore $92 million or approximately 58% of Tennessee's 
lost highway funds. Although I would like to see the entire funding 
level of $158 million for Tennessee returned to the budget, I support 
this compromise to save roads and jobs in Tennessee and across the 
nation.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill before us.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Federal investment in transportation is 
critical to moving our nation's people, goods, and economy. Maintaining 
and meeting our federal commitment to transportation spending is an 
important first step.
  I was proud to serve on the House Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee that authored the 1998 Federal surface transportation-
spending bill entitled TEA-21 (the Transportation Equity Act for the 
Twenty-first Century). This legislation provided record levels of 
guaranteed funding for highways, bridges, transit, and enhancement 
programs. In addition to funding, it also created a policy framework 
that emphasizes good planning, with a focus on public participation and 
environmental goals. All of these factors are critical tools to 
building more livable communites--where families have choices about how 
they travel and where they live.
  I was greatly concerned when earlier this year, the Bush 
Administration proposed in its fiscal year 2003 Budget a significant 
decrease in transportation spending from what Congress approved last 
year. This cut of $8.6 billion, or a 27 percent reduction in highway 
funding, is based on the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) 
provision of TEA-21. The need for infrastructure management, 
improvement, and new capacity has only increased and this funding is 
critical to the transportation plans in many communities. In Oregon 
alone, the impact is a loss of almost $51 million.
  As an original co-sponsor of H.R. 3694, I was proud to join with 
other members of Congress in sending a strong signal that our federal 
commitment to transportation infrastructure must be met. This bill 
would increase fiscal year 2003 highway funding by at least $4.4 
billion above the level requested in the President's Budget.
  Some have argued that since highway programs benefited from RABA in 
previous years, that they must now suffer the negative consequences, 
too. While this seems a logical argument, there are some important 
variables that come into play. Perhaps the most glaring is the impact 
that such a large cut would have on state transportation departments. 
Many state DOTs are already facing funding constraints while they are 
also struggling to maintain existing roads and provide solutions to 
reducing the growing levels of traffic congestion. Second, 
transportation spending keeps people employed building infrastructure 
critical to economic growth. Cutting highway spending by 27 percent 
would lead to significant job loss and threaten our economic recovery. 
Finally, there is already a cash balance in the Highway Trust Fund of 
roughly $20 billion that could be used to help restore the $4.4 billion 
proposed in this bill.
  In the upcoming year Congress will begin reauthorizing TEA-21. This 
will be an important opportunity to re-examine federal transportation 
policies and funding levels, including the RABA provision. I encourage 
my colleagues today to pass this bill and help restore the much-needed 
highway funding that will help states meet their transportation needs, 
help keep the economy growing, and help to build more livable 
communities.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3694, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________