[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 44 (Thursday, April 1, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H1796-H1820]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Tuesday, March 30, 2004, and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House 
in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 3550.

                              {time}  1027


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3550) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety 
programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, with Mr. Shaw 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, March 
30, 2004, the bill is considered as read the first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 2 hours and 40 minutes with 2 hours 
and 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
including a final period of 10 minutes following consideration of the 
bill for amendment and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I feel somewhat like the sinner appearing before the 
bishop when Your Honorable is in the Chair; but with all due respect, I 
do relish this moment. We are here today to support H.R. 3550, the 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, known as TEA LU.
  This bill is a result of a great deal of hard work and cooperation by 
the Members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on a 
bipartisan basis.
  I want to first thank the ranking minority member of our committee, 
my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). He has 
been a real champion of transportation, working with me to craft this 
legislation.
  I also want to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee of Highways, 
Transit and Pipelines, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). His 
leadership and dedication contributed greatly to bringing this bill to 
the floor today.

                              {time}  1030

  He has traveled many, many miles to try to bring the information and 
gather the information from the citizens of this great Nation.
  In addition, I appreciate the support and cooperation of the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), ranking minority member of the 
subcommittee. This effort demonstrates that, through bipartisanship, 
working together in cooperation, we can achieve I believe great things 
and legislate great things in this body.
  I particularly want to thank our Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hastert), for his leadership in moving this important legislation 
along. He has ensured that this body will be able to work its will and 
proceed as an independent branch of our government under our 
Constitution, and I do deeply appreciate his support.
  In addition, we could not have brought this bill to the floor today 
without the support and assistance of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas) from the Committee on Ways and Means. Chairman Thomas is 
proposing some changes to existing law that will provide additional 
revenues into the Highway Trust Fund. His proposal makes it possible to 
achieve a better bill, and I appreciate his advice and counsel.
  Lastly, I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) of 
the Committee on the Budget. He and his staff have been invaluable in 
ensuring that we continue the principles contained in TEA 21 that 
guarantee that highway trust funds will be spent on transportation, as 
promised to the American people. We have worked closely together to 
reach an agreement that meets both our needs at this point in time.
  We have worked with other committee chairmen on provisions contained 
in the bill; and, without their help, we would not have been able to 
bring this bill to the floor today. We will continue to work with other 
committees in a cooperative fashion as we proceed to conference.
  Mr. Chairman, traffic congestion, poor roads and hazardous highways 
are not Republican or Democrat problems. These are problems shared by 
all Americans, from all walks of life or economic conditions and all 
political parties.
  Today, congestion on our highways is greatly reducing the quality of 
life for American families. Congestion, congestion, congestion causes 
over $67 billion in lost productivity and wasted fuels, $67 billion 
lost that produces nothing. It costs the average driver $1,160 a year 
and more than a week and a half spent stuck in traffic. I want to 
stress that again. Average driver, $1,160 a year and more than a week 
and a half spent stuck in traffic.
  H.R. 3550 provides a new emphasis and a new program to relieve 
congestion, maximize roadway capacity and remove bottlenecks. In 
addition, more than 42,000 Americans are killed and 3.3 million are 
seriously injured each year on our highways. Nearly a third of the 
fatal crashes are caused by poor roads and roadside hazards. These 
fatalities are totally preventable.
  H.R. 3550 creates a new core program for highway safety 
infrastructure improvements, a new high-risk rural road safety program 
and supports a number of safety programs aimed at human factors that 
contribute to accidents.
  Mr. Chairman, we live in a global economy. Moving freight quickly and 
on time is absolutely essential to remain competitive and to retaining 
our

[[Page H1797]]

economic well-being. Other countries, such as China, are investing 
first in their transportation infrastructure because they know that 
without roads they cannot grow their economies. The United States must 
be willing to make transportation a top priority if we are to retain 
our economic leadership.
  H.R. 3550 funds five programs designed to improve movement of 
freight, including funding for border infrastructure, intermodal 
connectors, projects of regional and national significance and a new 
corridor infrastructure program.
  The bill also provides funding for construction of dedicated truck 
lanes. This will mean not only faster moving of freight but a vast 
improvement in safety on increasingly crowded interstates.
  Public mass transportation is a key component in our cities. Seniors, 
the disabled and low-income families rely heavily on public 
transportation. In addition, without transit our highways would be so 
congested that we would not be able to move at all.
  Therefore, H.R. 3550 continues our commitment to provide for public 
transportation both to our cities and to many rural areas where the 
need is great.
  America's transportation needs are obvious to anyone who spends time 
on our roads and highways. We are a Nation stuck in traffic. We based 
the funding level of H.R. 3550 on the administration's conditions and 
performance report which set forth the needs of our transportation 
system.
  In addition, we received far more requests from Members for funding 
of projects than we could possibly accommodate. That proves to me that 
the needs are real and that they are growing.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been never been a want bill. This is a needs 
bill for this great Nation. So I am disappointed we have had to reduce 
the funding for many of the very good programs that we proposed in H.R. 
3550 as introduced.
  Failure to address our transportation needs will leave our country 
behind in protecting our economy. Mr. Chairman, that is not acceptable 
to this chairman. It will reduce the quality of life of our citizens if 
we do not pass this bill.
  H.R. 3550 is a bill which embodies our vision for a better 
transportation legacy for America's future. I urge everyone during this 
debate and discussion of the bill to be able to listen to the merits of 
the legislation and support what is right for America.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very deeply touched by the words of the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young), our committee chairman. We have worked closely 
together on shaping this legislation.
  In a time when the image of the U.S. Congress to the rest of America 
is one of divisiveness and partisanship, this committee may well have 
set a model for how a legislative body ought to work, an interplay of 
ideas coming at the same issue, toward the same objective, with 
different viewpoints, openly debated, intensively discussed, thoroughly 
explored and a resolution that is in the public interest. It has been 
inclusive. It has been partnership rather than partisanship on this 
committee.
  That is a great tribute to the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman 
Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), who have put their best efforts forth, 
and to our respective professional staff who have carried the burden of 
the day time and again on what to others might be an arcane aspect of 
very complex issues but which are vitally important.
  So, as the Chairman said, we come to the floor with a bill that 
serves the best, broadest interests of transportation in America. It is 
a bipartisan product. It is one that should be $100 billion more, as 
the Chairman alluded to, without using that number, but we all know 
where we need to be, and to the gentleman from Alaska's (Chairman 
Young) great credit, Mr. Chairman, he has advocated openly, vigorously 
in every venue, in this body, with the executive branch and in the 
public, as I have, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) have done for a more robust 
funding which we need, which we all know is necessary to address the 
transportation needs of America, keep our economy mobile, growing, 
productive and competitive in the world marketplace.
  We do in the political arena what we can do, and what we can do here 
today under the circumstances is bring a bill at $275 billion that is 
good policy, sound policy for America, will move America forward.
  Congestion is clogging the arteries of transportation in our urban 
areas, in our close-in suburban areas and is affecting rural America as 
well. Congestion is slowing the movement of people and goods, extending 
our daily commute, driving the cost of goods up in the marketplace, 
driving up the frustration of American drivers, making our roadways 
less safe, costing America more in the long run.
  UPS, for example, estimates that for every 5-minute delay they lose 
$40 million nationwide. There are numerous other examples of costs of 
delay. The Texas Transportation Institute annually does a study of 
congestion in America. Their report in January of this year of 75 major 
metropolitan areas put the cost of congestion at $69.5 billion in just 
those 75 major metropolitan areas. That means that people are spending 
a week longer in their cars than they would if they could drive at 
posted highway speeds, buying four tanks of gasoline more than they 
would if they could drive at posted highway speeds, and using the name 
of the Lord more frequently in traffic on weekdays than they do in 
church on Sundays, I suspect.
  We propose to address that problem by attacking bottlenecks in our 
transportation system, addressing with a megaprojects program huge 
conflagrations of people, goods, all modes of transportation, passenger 
rail, freight rail, trucks, passenger cars, maritime, aviation, and 
loosen the bonds of congestion in those areas with an initiative we 
call megaprojects, whose result will be net national benefits, net 
regional multistate benefits and net benefits to our national economy.
  We are not just a continental economy. We are a global economy. China 
is investing, Japan is investing in its infrastructure, Europe is 
investing in its infrastructure to move goods and people faster, more 
efficiently, but America is not moving fast enough.
  The study that in TEA 21 we commissioned the Department of 
Transportation to do, an assessment of pavement conditions, bridge 
conditions, congestion and safety, produced a report that recommended 
an investment of $375 billion on the grounds that we ought to be 
investing at all levels of government $125 billion a year in 
infrastructure improvement and we were only investing $75 billion. We 
are $50 billion a year short.
  So, to keep our place in the competitiveness in the world 
marketplace, we need to do this. This is an investment that stays here 
in America. It stays home. The jobs created are American jobs. They are 
not created in Taiwan or Korea or Japan. They are created here in 
America, with American goods, American materials; and we ought to make 
that investment to make our economy move more efficiently, to put 1.7 
million more construction workers back to work, generate an additional 
$80 billion a year in economic activity and keep America moving.
  This bill will get us on the right track toward that objective.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Highways, Transit and Pipelines.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to salute the chairman of 
our committee for bringing us to this day and to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Lipinski), the staff on both the majority and minority of the 
committee. It has been a lot of work and a long road, and we still have 
far to go, but this is an important milestone in the passage of our 
Nation's transportation policy for the next 6 years.
  This legislation will have an impact on each of our constituents 
literally every day as they go about their daily lives, whether it is 
driving kids to school, hopping on a train as part of a daily commute 
or picking up a gallon

[[Page H1798]]

of milk that has been brought over the road on a truck.
  We on the committee had hoped to be discussing a somewhat different 
bill today. TEA LU, as introduced at $375 billion, is the right thing 
to do. It was fashioned to start to address the needs as identified by 
our own United States Department of Transportation. Anything less will 
not maintain and improve our transportation system. Nonetheless, this 
bill at $275 billion is a step toward meeting the needs we as a Nation 
have with a reduced amount of resources and is the best that we can 
achieve at the current time, given the situation that we find ourselves 
in.
  This bill provides increases each year in funding for the core 
highway formula programs for the States so that every State will see an 
increase in its funding. It includes important programs for safety, 
infrastructure safety on the road, work safety, motor carrier safety 
and behavioral safety programs to address drunk driving, occupational 
protection programs and other hazards.
  There are many provisions that facilitate the movement of freight, an 
important element to interstate commerce and a primary Federal interest 
in transportation. It will allow us to meet the needs of emerging trade 
corridors in this post-interstate construction era and other projects 
that have regional or national benefits that overwhelm the capabilities 
of any one State.
  We retain funding for transit at the 80/20 split and include programs 
that will help States meet the mobility needs of both urban and rural 
communities and improve opportunities for the elderly and for the 
disabled.
  It is forward looking in providing for a robust research program and 
innovative payments in bridges, recycled materials, freight movements 
and environmental programs. We prepare for the future in beginning to 
tackle the problem of identifying new financing mechanisms to replace 
the gas tax as a source of revenue for the Highway Trust Fund in the 
future and consider the future of the interstate system.

                              {time}  1045

  Are there concerns about funding formulas or other policy issues? Of 
course. In a bill of this size it is inevitable. We face the same 
questions literally every time that the House considers a 
reauthorization bill.
  In order to make progress in providing what some are calling for in 
terms of equity and donor State issues, you need more funds. 
Unfortunately, we do not have that today. But as we move through 
conference and in the future, we want to try to address those needs, if 
given the resources to do so.
  It is important to note, too, that the spending in this bill is paid 
for by the revenues coming into the Highway Trust Fund. We retain the 
guarantees that we fought so hard for in TEA 21 and maintain the trust 
with the traveling public that the gas taxes they pay will actually be 
spent on transportation improvements.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask support for the bill so we can provide 
jobs, protect our citizens' safety and maintain and improve our 
economic standing in a fast-changing world.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 25 seconds to express my 
deep gratitude to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines. He has 
been a true partner in this enterprise with the chairman of the full 
committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of his 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and myself, 
contributing his time, days and nights and weekends, calling from home, 
calling from his district office, lending his consummate grasp of 
transportation issues from the transportation hub of America, Chicago, 
where all of America's complexities are joined.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Lipinski), who is a great friend and a great contributor to this 
product.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), my partner in this endeavor, very much for 
those extremely kind words and for yielding me this time. It is always 
a pleasure working with him on any transportation issue, because no 
one, not only in this country but no one on this Earth, knows as much 
about transportation as the gentleman from Minnesota does.
  I want to begin today by thanking all of my colleagues on the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure from both sides of the 
aisle for all of their efforts and dedication. Many of my colleagues in 
this body have spent many, many hours meeting with countless numbers of 
individuals and organizations to hear their views.
  In particular, I give special mention to three individuals, the 
chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), who 
has been tireless in trying to develop a bill that will aid and assist 
us in this country in improving our transportation and infrastructure; 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), who I mentioned earlier, 
and who, as I said, knows more about transportation than anyone that 
you will ever encounter, for the great help that he has been in 
formulating this bill; and the gentleman from Wisconsin, (Mr. Petri), 
who has gone around the country and seen firsthand so many, many of the 
needs we have here. He has really been the individual who has brought 
so much information back to us, telling us where the needs really 
existed in this country.
  These three Members have provided tremendous leadership in getting 
this bill to where we are today. However, it should not be viewed that 
this bill was crafted only by members of our committee. Since our 
committee began to work on this bill, we have asked for and received 
input and comments from almost every single Member in this body. We 
have held dozens of hearings, with the active participation of many of 
my colleagues in this Chamber. And, most importantly, we have listened 
to what they had to say.
  Because of this and the bipartisan history of this committee, I 
believe we have a very good piece of legislation that reflects many 
different priorities promoted by Members who represent diverse 
constituencies and interests. It truly is democracy at work.
  As I have said, I believe we have a very solid piece of legislation. 
While I will be the first one to say that it is not entirely perfect, 
there is no doubt in my mind that at this particular time this bill is 
as perfect as we can make it. We have made some significant strides in 
improving this country's infrastructure, and these accomplishments will 
benefit Americans now and into the future.
  In this bill we have increased funding from $218 billion to $275 
billion. While this is not the original funding level proposed by the 
committee, this still represents a decent increase.
  It is important to bear in mind that this legislation is not just 
about money. It is not just about funding. It is also about innovation 
and moving transportation policy in new directions. There are many, 
many things we can point to in this bill. This bill contains new 
initiatives that will improve our quality of life. We have strengthened 
current programs to meet our existing conditions, and we have expanded 
and created new programs to address the needs of today and prepare for 
the needs of the future.
  This bill creates a number of such programs, such as a new and 
improved National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement program, Highway 
Safety Improvement program, Small Starts Transit program, and Safe 
Routes to Schools. This is certainly not the entire list of new 
programs, but these are examples of new programs that will represent 
the collected efforts of many individuals and many organizations that 
have contributed to this bill on the floor today.
  Other important programs included are an improved clean fuels formula 
grant for nonattainment areas like northeastern Illinois, Southern 
California, New York City, and Washington, D.C. These funds will help 
transit agencies purchase clean fuel buses and help improve our air 
quality. Improving air quality is just one of the many important public 
policy needs that the TEA LU bill addresses.
  In this bill, it is recognized that transit is not just for big 
cities; it is also a growing need in rural communities. To help meet 
the needs of rural America, we have increased funding to the section 
5311 program.
  Time after time, survey after survey, Americans point to traffic 
congestion as a growing and serious problem in

[[Page H1799]]

this country. In 2001 alone, congestion costs this country $69.5 
billion. And, on average, Americans lose 27 hours a year due to delays. 
As congestion levels continue to rise in the United States, we must 
focus on modernizing our vital transportation infrastructure and 
improving the quality of life for all Americans. By targeting Federal 
resources for specific purposes, this bill would also help improve 
congestion in major urban areas across this country by creating a 
safer, more efficient infrastructure for the millions of Americans who 
use our roads, highways, railways, and bridges each day.
  As we continue to move forward with TEA LU, it is easier to think 
about what may have been. Yes, it would have been nice to have a $375 
billion bill; but because of this administration's opposition to 
raising the highway user fee, this is the hand that we have been dealt. 
Right here and right now, this is the most practical way to maintain 
highways, roadways, buses and subways, and protect the safety of the 
American public.
  This bill is a significant step in the right direction. It is a step 
towards improving our communities, a step towards helping folks spends 
less time commuting and more time with their families and loved ones; 
it is a step towards safer travel; and it is a step towards cleaner 
air. I hope you will take this step with me and lend us your support.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity 
Act: A Legacy for Users.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
east Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this very 
important legislation, which will improve our transportation 
infrastructure and create millions of jobs, and I want to thank the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, (Mr. Petri) for yielding me this time.
  I especially want to commend the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young); chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Petri); and the ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), all very 
close friends of mine, who are to be commended for their great 
leadership on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the biggest jobs bill that we will vote on in 
this Congress. I am sick and tired of seeing millions of American jobs 
go to other countries. All over this Nation there is tremendous concern 
about this. We are spending hundreds of billions in other countries. 
This bill is one that puts our own people first once again.
  But it is more than just a jobs bill, Mr. Chairman. This is a safety 
bill. I chaired the Subcommittee on Aviation for 6 years. 
Unfortunately, there are more people killed on our Nation's highways in 
just a little over 4 months than in all U.S. aviation accidents 
combined since the Wright Brothers flight of 1903. This bill is one 
that will make our Nation's highways much safer and will save many 
thousands of lives.
  We need to take terrorism very seriously, Mr. Chairman; but we are 
spending hundreds of billions on terrorism, when we count up all the 
military and Federal, State and local spending, and what all the 
private companies are doing on security. Yet, as the very respected 
National Journal magazine pointed out a few months ago, people are 
thousands of times more likely to be killed in a car wreck than by a 
terrorist. Surely we can spend $45 billion a year on our Nation's 
highways and our National Transportation System.
  This is an efficiency bill. One leading national magazine said 
recently, ``Congestion costs the Nation about $67 billion a year. 
Americans waste 3.6 billion hours and 5.7 billion gallons of gas 
sitting in traffic, all at an average cost of $1,160 per commuter per 
year.''
  This bill will save huge amounts of tax dollars by speeding up the 
time in which projects can be completed. Everything in our economy, Mr. 
Chairman, everything in our personal lives depends on, or is affected 
by, a good transportation system.
  I am especially pleased that in this bill there is language promoting 
technology to decrease or cut down or eliminate the time that trucks 
have to idle at truck stops. I also want to work on the language, 
though, that is in the bill concerning parking areas for trucks along 
our Nation's interstate highway system so that those parking areas do 
not compete against companies in the private sector.
  No one on our committee, Mr. Chairman, wants to pave over the entire 
country, but vehicle miles traveled keeps going up at three to five 
times the rate of our population growth. This means we have to improve 
and widen our highways.
  Paul Craig Roberts, the nationally syndicated conservative columnist 
wrote recently: ``Before we can reconstruct the rest of the world, we 
need to stop deconstructing our own country.'' I have nothing against 
any other Nation, but this is one bill that is pro-American. It is not 
only pro-American, it is pro-jobs, pro-environment, pro-safety; and I 
urge its passage because this is one of the best things we will be able 
to do this year in this Congress.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr.Holden), a distinguished member of our committee.
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to commend 
the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young), and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and the ranking members, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Lipinski), for all their hard work in bringing this legislation to the 
floor.
  This legislation is very important to my home State of Pennsylvania 
where we have more road miles to maintain than our friends in New 
Jersey, New York and New England combined. But, Mr. Chairman, this is 
not only important to Pennsylvania; it is important to every one of our 
congressional districts where we have congestion problems, safety 
hazard problems, and economic development needs and concerns.
  I want to thank my leader and my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar), for personally not once but twice coming to my 
congressional district and looking at the problems we face, where we 
are, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, looking at that unbelievable amount 
of truck traffic that comes through every day; and in Lebanon, 
Pennsylvania, where we have the Norfolk Southern coming through 50 
times a day, not only disrupting traffic but also the safety concerns 
of having ambulance crews and fire companies being able to address 
concerns in the city; and in Schuylkill Haven, Pennsylvania, where 
there is a bike path that has been on the books for 2 decades.
  This legislation will allow us to move forward on projects like that. 
So I want to commend the big four for all their hard efforts in 
bringing this legislation to the floor. And as was mentioned by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and by the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), not only is this good for our highway and 
transit systems, this legislation is good for our economy.
  This legislation truly is a jobs bill, and I commend the big four for 
all their hard efforts.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. LaTourette).

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I want to give a piece of praise this 
morning to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for the mighty work and just 
the first names of some people on the staff: Levon and Liz and Lloyd 
and Fraser and Graham and some other people that I will forget because 
they literally had to write this bill three, four, five different times 
from where it started at $375 billion.
  So when the gentleman from Minnesota was talking rightly about the 
contributions that the gentleman from Illinois has made, the staff of 
both the majority and minority have done yeomen's work to produce this 
piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that is desperately needed 
in the United States.
  But I do feel constrained this morning to say despite the need, 
despite the need that everybody on the committee recognizes, this bill 
has been bungled,

[[Page H1800]]

not bungled by the able leadership of the committee but it has been 
bungled. By not getting a signal to reauthorize this legislation when 
TEA 21 expired last September, AASHTO tells us that we have cost the 
economy over $2 billion, and 90,000 jobs that could have been created 
have not been created.
  The failure to make this bill $375 billion, and the gentleman from 
Minnesota was right on the money. This is not a number that the 
committee made up. Those numbers came from the Department of 
Transportation as the need that exists in this country.
  When I go home to Ohio, a lot of people say to me, I see that you're 
spending $18.4 billion this year alone to rebuild the infrastructure of 
Iraq. That is again something that a lot of people in this House think 
that we need to do after what we have done in Iraq. We are begging, 
trying to squeeze out $18 billion over 6 years to build roads in the 
United States. My constituents do not understand that and they have 
difficulty and, quite frankly, so do I.
  There was a lot of talk yesterday in our Republican Conference and 
criticism of Chairman Young that this bill does not embrace Republican 
principles. I have said it on the floor before: Abraham Lincoln in 
1865, I just saw the special on the History Channel, got the guy that 
ran the Ames Shovel Company in Massachusetts to build the 
transcontinental railroad. That is a Republican principle. Dwight David 
Eisenhower was the spearhead behind the national highway system that we 
enjoy and use today for national defense. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, 
George H.W. Bush all recognized, and it is not to say anything about 
Democratic values, that Republican values in this country are based 
upon a strong defense and a strong infrastructure in this country.
  We are told that 32 percent of our major roads are in poor condition 
and that 26 percent of our bridge infrastructure is totally deficient. 
Last year, 1,400 Ohioans died on the roads in Ohio. One-third of those 
deaths, Mr. Chairman, are directly attributable to poor roads and 
roadside hazards. So why some bean counters have determined that we can 
do this bill on the cheap when the infrastructure needs of this country 
are crying out for repair is beyond me.
  But, having said that, again the gentleman from Alaska, the gentleman 
from Minnesota and the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee 
have done their level best. This is a good bill, it will help us, but 
we need about $100 billion more to get the job done.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, let me rise to thank the 
chairman and the ranking member for their leadership and also the 
subcommittee chair and ranking member. I am talking about the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). These are the leaders that put this bill on 
the floor today. They are the ones who have heard from the mayors and 
the county supervisors about the congestion that is on our roads. They 
are the ones who have brought forth this very principled and balanced 
bill.
  This bill speaks to, and the initial bill that we had for $375 
billion, Mr. Chairman, did speak to recommendations and needs, 
assessments, provided by the Department of Transportation. That first 
bill was based on the administration's own numbers. But this bill 
speaks to the traffic congestion that costs American motorists some 
$67.5 billion a year in wasted time and fuel cost. Americans spend an 
additional 4.5 billion hours a year stuck in traffic.
  This bill addresses the immediate needs of our communities. Our 
communities have spoken loud and clear: They want congestion relief. 
This bill also speaks to projects of national and regional 
significance.
  I want to thank the leadership again, the chairman and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Illinois, 
of the subcommittees, for their leadership in bringing this particular 
language to the bill. This bill and that language, Mr. Chairman, speaks 
to a new program that will go a long way in relieving our Nation's 
congestion on the roads and those choke points that will help to reduce 
that congestion in our cities and in our communities.
  This program and funding addresses the increasing importance of 
moving goods safely, securely and efficiently among our freeways and 
highways. It also speaks to the mobilization of people. This bill is 
good for not only communities, mayors and county supervisors but also 
for businesses. This is why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
Conference of Mayors and all are supporting this bill as it is. They 
recognize that when we go to conference, there will be some adjustments 
made, but they want this bill to go out as it is because it represents 
all that is necessary for a balanced approach in the national scope of 
providing relief from congestion.
  This bill also speaks to I-710, which is a high-priority corridor in 
California. Fifteen percent of our Nation's total commerce of inbound 
and outbound containerized goods are moved along I-710. This is truly a 
high-priority corridor.
  This is also a jobs bill, Mr. Chairman, because we recognize that 
over 3 million jobs have been lost. This bill creates the type of 
opportunities for jobs. What else can we say? This is a win-win bill, 
and this bill should pass off the floor.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Quinn).
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I want to join the others associating myself 
with the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) in 
thanking the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for actually trying to hit a 
moving target these last months. That is not an easy thing to do here 
in Washington.
  But this bill, as important as it is, and those remarks and numbers 
that the gentleman from Ohio just offered could not be truer in Buffalo 
and western New York.
  Mr. Chairman, when I came here I followed a great public works 
Member, Henry Nowak, who understood the importance not only in western 
New York but all across the country of public works projects. He taught 
me that a public works project and the things that we do or are trying 
to do in this bill is a double win. It is almost like chopping your own 
firewood. You chop the firewood, and you are warmed. You are also, when 
you use the firewood, warmed.
  These public works kinds of projects are a double win. We as country, 
as a nation, get the projects; and we also get jobs that go with those 
projects. At a time when our country talks about losing jobs more and 
more, this is the jobs bill of this session of Congress. It is not the 
number that we wanted. It is not high enough. A little give and take in 
compromise here I believe will get us to where we want to be for this 
part of the Congress, and I am hopeful that we renew ourselves next 
year to get to this kind of planning that is necessary all across the 
country.
  When we talk to our local and State representatives, they know they 
need 5 and 6 years to plan some of these important projects. It gets 
the money out.
  I do want to say a word, if I might, Mr. Chairman, about the railroad 
situation. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads and my 
partner, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), we know that 
we are not going to have a discussion about the rail issues in this 
bill today.
  We had some plans in the manager's amendment to talk about the R-RIF 
program, a renewed loan program to get loan money out to railroads to 
better put themselves in a position for the railroad business of the 
country. We also talked about the short lines and some infrastructure 
money for them. No word is going to be mentioned here today in the bill 
on the floor about Amtrak. These are all important projects for all of 
us in the House and across the country.
  I am hopeful, as the gentlewoman from Florida and I continue our work 
on the Subcommittee on Railroads this year, to work with both sides of 
the aisle and our counterparts in the Senate to get a bill where we can 
talk about rail infrastructure and railroad needs.

[[Page H1801]]

  Certainly we have spoken at all of our hearings about a backup to our 
airline industry. We have talked about the need for rail to take 
congestion off the roads and away from the airports. Whether it is 
passenger or freight, the railroad system in this country desperately 
needs some help. We, although silent on it here today and tomorrow in 
this discussion, fully expect to be engaged in every bit of the 
process.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank both sides of the aisle for their help. 
We look forward to our continued work as probably the most bipartisan 
committee in the House of Representatives to get the job done.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), our resident urban planner and 
thoughtful member of this committee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
in permitting me to speak in support of what is the most important jobs 
and environmental bill of this session. Because of the structure that 
has been maintained under ISTEA, this legislation also is the most 
important tool for the preservation and revitalization of our 
communities.
  This is an opportunity to give a balanced approach. In some cases, it 
is a need for repairing crumbling bridges. In some cases, it is new 
roads. In others, it is bike paths, transit, street cars, historic 
preservation. This legislation has a wide range of options that is 
available to America's communities, and it gives them the flexibility 
to use those tools.
  Sadly, what it does not give them is enough resources really to meet 
the needs that have been identified by this administration and which 
have so ably been championed by the leadership of our committee.
  There has been a lot of talk about the costs that are involved. We 
have documented time and time again that the American public is paying 
the price right now with increased pollution, with delays as a result 
of congestion, with load limits on bridges, with the lost opportunity 
for the economy, as our friend from Ohio mentioned, of several billion 
dollars lost just in the delay that we have reached to this point.
  We all know that this investment in our communities is going to spur 
additional private sector and public investment. This bill will pay for 
itself many times over if we are only able to move it forward.
  What we have seen, Mr. Chairman, has been the hard choices. In the 
last 24 hours there has been a great deal of controversy by some. In 
some cases, they are saying their States do not get back enough. In 
others, they are concerned that there are specific things that are not 
met. That is a product of not having a bill that is right-sized.
  Our committee leadership brought forward and worked very hard to 
balance the safety, the equity, the environment and Members' requests. 
The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) worked very hard to weave it 
together. But the fact is, at $275 billion, it is a very tenuous 
prospect and it may well crumble if we are not careful.
  It was wrong for the President of the United States to draw a line 
here that he is going to veto his very first bill. I, frankly, do not 
think he will. It would be a tragedy for our communities, and I know 
that many of my Republican friends do not think that that is 
appropriate. I note that the Senate bill at $318 billion passed with 
over 70 votes. I do not think that this is the place to try to make the 
claim for fiscal responsibility. I have stood in this well and I have 
watched this House move forward legislation that frankly were not 
America's priorities. It is the wrong time to do that now.
  I would suggest that this is a vote for America's future. We should 
keep faith with the broadest coalition of interests we have seen, from 
the Sierra Club to the Chamber of Commerce, from the bicyclists to the 
truckers, pass this bill and work to right-size it in the future, not 
bring it down.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users, or 
affectionately known as TEA LU.
  I want to begin by extending my appreciation to the chairman of the 
full committee as well as the ranking member for their work in this 
extremely important bipartisan piece of legislation. They have fought 
the good fight, and here we are today. We need to pass this important 
legislation to improve our transportation system.
  I would like to remind my Republican colleagues who may have some 
questions about this bill, whether we should pass it or not, that the 
Founding Fathers charged the Federal Government, the United States 
Congress, to oversee interstate commerce, to encourage interstate 
commerce. That is what this bill is all about, interstate commerce, 
improving the efficiency of our economy.
  In addition, as the gentleman from Ohio reminded us, this is a core 
principle, a core legacy of the Republican Party in this country, from 
Abraham Lincoln and the transcontinental railroad, to Teddy Roosevelt 
and the Panama Canal, Eisenhower and the interstate highway system. 
This is extremely important for us as Republicans. We can be proud to 
pass this and improve our country and improve this economy.
  The modern highway and transit system maps this Nation's economic 
strength as it weaves through our cities and small towns. However, 
heavy traffic and increased congestion have taken a heavy toll on our 
highways, bridges and transit systems. As stewards of our highways, we 
cannot wait any longer to fix transportation systems that are listed as 
substandard or poor or bridges that are considered structurally 
deficient.
  As a Pennsylvanian who represents a broad geographic region, I know 
the issue of transportation is critical to our constituents. I hear it 
each day and every day from small business owners, from large employers 
and from even average family members who sit on the front porch and 
watch the traffic back up over the horizon. Our roads, highways and 
transit systems link our cities, businesses and lives to one another. 
To let them deteriorate is unjust to any one person who uses them.

                              {time}  1115

  The need, Mr. Chairman, is clear. While I am disappointed that we 
were unable to pass a larger bill, I believe that the legislation 
before us today will go a long way in alleviating the troubles that 
plague our highway and transit systems. Over the 6-year life of TEA LU, 
it will provide $232 billion in funding for highways and highway 
safety, $52 billion for our transit system. These funding levels take 
critical steps to ensuring our Nation's infrastructure remains strong.
  A key component of this bill is the fulfillment of a longstanding 
need to improve safety, and it takes steps to combat the 42,000 lives 
that are lost each year on our Nation's highways.
  As a Member who represents a rural area of Pennsylvania, I am very 
pleased that we are including a new program to upgrade and make 
improvements to roads and rural areas where over 60 percent of auto 
fatalities take place. This legislation includes important measures to 
relieve congestion on our Nation's highways. The investment of our 
transit system not only strengthens transit, but also encourages the 
use of mass transit to relieve congestion. It also creates a program to 
help fund smaller transit programs, offering States more options in 
improving their transit systems.
  To further relieve bottle necks on our roads, TEA LU contains 
innovative real-time and intelligent transportation initiatives that 
allow States to monitor and improve traffic flow and enhance safety. 
Building on these innovative programs, I also encourage support of an 
amendment that will be offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Kennedy) to create voluntary toll lanes, or fast lanes, which pay for 
new lanes and highways to increase capacity. Drivers who choose these 
fast lanes will be charged electronically, eliminating the toll booths 
that add to the backups and congestion.
  And finally, I was very pleased that TEA LU funds Maglev. Maglev is 
an exciting new transportation technology that is a vital next step in 
the future of

[[Page H1802]]

our Nation's transportation system. Additionally, funding for Maglev is 
an essential step in addressing some of the most pressing needs facing 
our domestic steel industry by creating the demand for steel. For 
instance, a typical Maglev project would require 4,000 tons of plate 
steel per mile for the tracks.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill and a solid step in the right 
direction, providing State DOTs with the long-term stability they need 
to plan for projects. I want to again thank the gentleman from Alaska 
(Chairman Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Petri), the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for their tireless efforts and leadership on 
behalf of American motorists, passengers, and transit systems. We need 
to pass this bill to increase the efficiency of our economy, to create 
jobs, and improve safety. I urge passage.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. I 
concur with many of the previous comments about the need for greater 
investment than what this legislation calls for, but this is such an 
important step. I also rise to praise the gentleman from Alaska 
(Chairman Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Lipinski), the leadership of this committee. They have operated in 
the great tradition of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, working together to pursue a bipartisan outcome. I am 
proud to be associated with this committee because of that type of 
leadership. I think everyone in Congress could take a good cue from 
taking a look at the behavior exhibited by leadership of this 
committee.
  This is a program that represents an investment. People talk about 
whether this is increased spending or whatnot. The reality is when we 
spend money on infrastructure, we are investing. We are investing in 
good jobs, and we are investing in our economy. And in an increasingly 
globalized world where we feel the pressures of globalization and 
competition from around the world, the notion of investing in our own 
transportation infrastructure and making our economy more efficient in 
the way we move people and the way we move products seems to be all the 
more compelling in our current circumstances. That is what this 
legislation helps to do.
  There are significant and important needs in this country to invest 
in this type of infrastructure to allow our economy to realize those 
efficiencies, to put the United States in a better position to compete 
with the rest of the world.
  We hear so much these days about job loss. We hear so much about 
outsourcing. We hear so much about globalization. Vote for this bill 
today because it puts us on a path to take on those issues. I wish we 
were at the higher number, a majority of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, I suspect, wishes we were at that 
number as well. But this is an important first step and the legislation 
will give us opportunities in the future to address adjusting that 
level of investment in the future. But today is the day, with this bill 
in front of us. I encourage all of our colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. And I too want to extend kudos to the gentleman from Alaska 
(Chairman Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Lipinski), and for that matter members and staff on both sides of 
the aisle who sit on the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. This has been a team effort personified.
  I am an avid supporter, Mr. Chairman, of H.R. 3550, the 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users; and I am pleased it is 
now being considered on the floor today.
  I realize that Members have worked tirelessly at the end of a long 
day, but at a time when we have much work to do to address our Nation's 
critical infrastructure, while this country is indeed in dire need of 
upgrade and repair, this legislation is also a jobs bill; and I think 
some people casually overlook that fact. And the fact that it is a jobs 
bill will offer new opportunities to many of our Nation's recently 
unemployed workers. I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman 
Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), with whom I have 
talked concerning an ancillary problem which involves the donor States 
of which North Carolina is one, among several others. First of all, I 
thank them for recognizing the problem, and I hope that we will be able 
to resolve this problem which continues to plague donor States such as 
my home State.
  This bill, Mr. Chairman, as I have said before the full Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, has jobs written all over it. It is 
an important step to address the problems that are a direct result of 
unsafe bridges and highways that continue to deteriorate. Mr. Chairman, 
unsafe bridges and unsafe highways abound in this great country from 
border to border, from ocean to ocean; and improvements must be 
forthcoming.
  This bill, it is my belief, will have the assurance that vehicular 
traffic will be allowed to flow more freely, resulting in the delivery 
of people and goods at their respective destinations in a safe and 
timely manner. I again thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman 
of the subcommittee, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, before I begin my remarks, I would like to 
also add my voice to thanks for the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman 
Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member. 
Sometimes I think they represent my community as well as I do, and I 
appreciate the help; also the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for their leadership in 
getting this bill to the floor today.
  This bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we 
will vote on in this Congress. While the amount is significantly less 
than what I would like and what I believe the country needs, I rise in 
strong support. This bill will alleviate congestion, address air 
quality needs, and improve the quality of life in all of our 
communities. My district, the Las Vegas Valley, is the fastest growing 
community in the country, and we are struggling with the needs for new 
roads and highways and more transit options. Without this investment in 
our transportation programs, Las Vegas will be unable to complete the 
projects needed to keep traffic moving and to keep our commuters safe.
  Sitting in traffic takes precious time from families spending time 
together, and it forces businesses to pass along higher costs for goods 
and services, and it adds to air pollution problems as drivers sit 
stuck in traffic wasting gas and money. Without this bill we will also 
increase the risk to drivers as too many cars crowd our roads causing 
accidents to rise. Increased funding for pedestrian overpasses, new 
traffic safety devices, and information systems to alert drivers to 
dangers ahead are all investments in saving lives.
  And finally, Mr. Chairman, this is a jobs bill. In the past 3 years 
we have seen the highest job loss in this Nation since the Depression. 
Today we have a chance to do something about it. For every billion 
dollars invested in highway and transit programs, we stand to create 
47,000 jobs, real good-paying jobs. This is 12,500 jobs in my home 
State of Nevada.
  I cannot emphasize the importance of this particular highway bill. I 
urge all of my colleagues to join me, join with the people of the State 
of Nevada, and let us vote for this legislation with great enthusiasm.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert).
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, once again I want to voice the strong 
opinions of the fair coalition in my home State of New York that we 
preserve the highway equity established in TEA 21. Transportation is 
one of the only programs where my State gets back from

[[Page H1803]]

the Federal Government more than it contributes in taxes. Every year 
New York sends $20 billion more to Washington than it receives back in 
various Federal assistance programs. That is a fact. In this bill we 
have to strive to be fair. What is fair is that we preserve a needs-
based highway and transit program and create a stronger integrated 
national transportation system.
  New York's highways and transit infrastructure serve the entire 
Nation through its roads and its ports and its rail facilities and its 
airports. However, our infrastructure is aging, and much of it needs to 
be repaired or replaced. With 33 percent of the Nation's transit 
riders, New York receives only 14 percent of the total transit funding. 
We simply cannot afford any changes to a formula that would give us 
even less. We have Federal support capped at 10 percent for our 
bridges; yet we have 20 percent of the identified national need.
  As a result, the most critical feature of the bill is that we make no 
immediate changes to the current minimum guarantee of 90.5 percent. If 
the overall level of funding does not remain at its current level, it 
would be unfair to New York and many other States.
  Next I want to thank the T&I staff for working so hard with my staff 
to include language in the manager's amendment to support efforts to 
reduce wildlife vehicle collisions. In America last year, accidents 
involving wildlife took over 200 lives. It cost more than $2 billion in 
property damage and killed over a million game animals. In many parts 
of the country, cars are killing more game than hunters. So I look 
forward to continuing to work on conservation and wildlife measures 
with my colleagues.
  Finally, I want to voice my support of the House language governing 
charter service. The language helps clarify charter service rules. 
Without this, all across America providers of transportation services 
including school bus contractors will be irrevocably harmed.
  Last but not least, while this is a massive infrastructure bill to 
take care of identified needs across this Nation, it is also a bill 
that concentrates on my favorite four-letter word, and do not get 
nervous. People can use it in polite company. This is a jobs bill. This 
will get more Americans back to work, good pay, good benefits, doing 
things that all America needs.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), our committee 
resident legal scholar.
  (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. And I thank the so-called big four, the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Lipinski), who stood tall and strong for this bill. We do have a 
stripped-down bill fiscally. Although they took the number, the $375 
million number, from the Department of Transportation which regarded it 
as the minimum number for our infrastructure this year. One would think 
that everybody would rush forward to embrace that number 2 years into a 
jobless recovery. Nevertheless, I strongly support this bill. It must, 
in fact, be passed. It is full of good provisions. I particularly 
commend the minority business section and the training to take 
advantage of minority businesses. There are many new sections as well.
  I want to concentrate on one issue, the issue that drove African 
Americans and people of color to the polls in 2000, and that was racial 
profiling on the roads of the United States bought and paid for by the 
U.S. Congress. It is the last remaining widespread, overt and 
intentional discrimination in our country.

                              {time}  1130

  Racial profiling is a violation already of title VI of the 1964 Civil 
Rights Act, because it means that the government is subsidizing 
discrimination. That is why there have been so many successful lawsuits 
in the States. It is an unconstitutional violation of the 14th 
amendment, because it is carried out by police officers.
  The President understood this. This is why he instructed his own 
Justice Department to issue guidance on racial profiling for Federal 
officers. It is excellent, tough guidance. I asked for the same in this 
bill.
  I regret we were not willing to do for the States what the President 
has done for the Federal service. I wrote a provision that would have 
been parallel to what we have done with speeding and drunk driving. 
Nevertheless, we have a grant provision that encourages the States to 
create racial profiling laws and allows the States that do so to get 
funded to develop and maintain data and do law enforcement training. 
This is a tough provision. States must show that they have tough racial 
profiling laws.
  It also is time that we had racial profiling as part and parcel of 
our civil rights laws. That is why I am a cosponsor of the bill 
introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that would do 
just that. (H.R. 3847)
  Meanwhile, this is the first racial profiling provision in Federal 
law. Every Member of this House should be proud we were willing to put 
it in this bill. It is an important start.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation coming up this afternoon, the highway transportation bill. 
I implore that my other colleagues in the House also support this 
measure.
  One of the sticking points here is the highway formula about donor 
States and donee States. I would like to remind my colleagues, Maryland 
is a donor State through the formula.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that everybody that goes through 
your State, from near or very far away, pays those gasoline taxes, pays 
those tolls, et cetera, et cetera. So we as Americans contribute in a 
collective way all across this country to ensure that the interstate 
highway system provides sufficient opportunity and avenues to 
continuously stimulate our dynamic economy.
  There are some questions about the formula here, but those questions 
I think should not hold up this important piece of legislation.
  Our truckers, the people that ride trains, the cargo that go across 
this country on trucks and trains, our commuters, our salesmen, our 
vacationers, our explorers, they travel across the Nation's highways, 
which is the foundation for the infrastructure of this Nation. I hope 
my colleagues will vote for this piece of legislation.
  There is one provision that is in the Senate version of the highway 
bill that is not in the House version of the highway bill, and that is 
a 2 percent set-aside to understand how you can engineer, in other 
words, do it right the first time, a highway, so you do not contribute 
to the pollution of the Nation's waterways, which is also important for 
the infrastructure, the environmental infrastructure, of this Nation.
  So I would like to work with the House and the Senate and will work 
with the chairman of the Committee on Transportation to ensure that 
that Senate version provision, the 2 percent set-aside to engineer our 
highways, to reduce or eliminate storm water runoff into the Nation's 
water system, remains intact.
  This is a bill that deals with human infrastructure, and we have an 
opportunity to take the first big step to ensure that human 
infrastructure is compatible with nature's infrastructure.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time. It is a pleasure to be on the floor this morning to talk about 
some of the advantages that are in the 6-year reauthorization of our 
transportation funding.
  One of the innovations that the committee came up with that I think 
is remarkably farsighted is setting aside some of the Highway Trust 
Fund money, in particular funds that will be available for grants to 
States to participate in building highways of national significance. 
These are highways that could be very important for trade in our 
hemisphere, they could be very important for easing congestion, they 
could be very important for moving

[[Page H1804]]

commerce from one region of the country to other. But in each case they 
will be highways that truly have national significance.
  What is just as important is these highways, in the main interstate 
highways, probably would not be built were it not for the availability 
of funds in these particular categories that are set up by this bill. 
Because if the funding were not available through these categorical 
grants or these categorical funds, the States individually would not be 
able to build these highways out of their regular annual allocations.
  So I think that is a very innovative, far-sighted approach to solving 
the problem of continuing to improve our highway infrastructure, 
particularly in terms of those highways which will add significant 
economic benefits to not just one particular region of the country but 
to the whole country.
  So as we move forward in this age of increased global trade, of 
increased need to create jobs and grow our economy, these highways of 
national significance are going to be extremely important in moving us 
forward.
  So I commend the committee for their far-sightedness in making it 
possible for these highways of national significance to be built in the 
next 6 years; and then, of course, I would expect this to be continued 
until we have quite a more extensive network of highways across our 
Nation, which will enable us to grow jobs and grow our economy.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Our transportation system continues to face tremendous challenges. 
Tens of thousands of lives are lost each year on our highways. More 
drivers are driving more miles, causing severe congestion. An aging 
infrastructure is putting a strain on State and local transportation 
budgets. The public rightly demands safer, less congested roads and 
more transportation choices.
  Fundamental improvements to the entire transportation system depend 
on solid research. Solid research will translate to saved lives, saved 
money and saved time by providing the tools and information needed to 
produce solutions. How many of us have used an EZ Pass to breeze past 
congestion at a toll booth? Or been gently reminded to stay on the road 
by a rumble strip?
  Examples abound of these sorts of benefits gained by transportation 
research, such as research on pavements focuses on manipulating 
substances at the molecular level to create materials that are more 
durable and last significantly longer. This saves money, because more 
durable pavements need less maintenance and are replaced less 
frequently. It also saves time, reducing construction zones that are a 
major cause of congestion.
  Furthermore, research on transit focuses on how to make transit 
systems more cost-effective and efficient. Better transit systems give 
people more choices and save time by reducing the number of cars on the 
road.
  Research in the social sciences focuses on understanding how future 
changes in where people live and work will affect future transportation 
usage, so that planners can make early, smart investments to ensure 
that we meet future transportation needs.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and 
Standards of the Committee on Science, I introduced H.R. 3551, the 
Surface Transportation Research and Development Act. This legislation, 
which was approved by the full Committee on Science on February 4, 
increases stakeholder input, expands competition and peer review of 
research proposals, and ensures greater accountability so that this 
research actually supports the goals of our transportation system.
  I am pleased that the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and his 
staff have worked very closely with me and my staff to incorporate much 
of the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act and its 
intent into TEA LU. While I wish we could have provided more funding 
for research, I must especially thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) for ensuring that, as funding for TEA LU was reduced from $375 
billion to $275 billion, research was treated fairly. That was not the 
case 6 years ago during consideration of TEA 21.
  I especially wanted to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) 
for his pledge to work with me to continue to improve the research 
title and its funding as we discuss this issue with the Senate.
  Mr. Chairman, when most of us think about the highway bill, we ten to 
focus on funding levels for our States and projects. Few of us think 
about transportation research. But transportation research is 
fundamental to all aspects of our transportation system. How many of us 
have used an EZ Pass to breeze past congestion at a toll both? Or have 
been gently, or not so gently reminded to stay on he road by a rumble 
strip? How many of us have benefited from pavements that are quieter 
and last longer than they did 30 years ago? Every driver and passenger 
is better off today because of past investments in transportation 
research and technology development.
  Our transportation system continues to face tremendous challenges. 
Tens of thousands of lives are lost each year on our highways. More 
drivers are driving more miles, causing severe congestion. An aging 
infrastructure is putting a strain on State and local transpiration 
budgets. Changing patterns of where people live and work demand 
innovative planning for our future needs. The public rightly demands 
safer, less congested roads, and more transportation choices realizing 
that we can't simply build more roads to address all of these 
challenges, especially in urban areas, we must look for new ways to 
improve the overall system.
  Fundamental improvements to the entire transportation system depend 
on solid research, Solid research will translate to saved lives, saved 
money and saved time by providing the tools and information needed to 
produce solutions. For example:
  Research on pavements focuses on manipulating substances at the 
molecular level to create materials that are more durable and last 
significantly longer. This saves money, because more durable pavements 
need less maintenance and are replaced less frequently. It also saves 
time, reducing construction zones that are a major cause of congestion;
  Reseach on operations focuses on improving the design of dangerous 
merges and intersections. This research saves lives by 
providing planners the information to design safer roads. It also saves 
time by reducing accidents, which cause congestion;

  Research on transit focuses on how to make transit systems more cost-
effective and efficient. Better transit systems give people more 
choices, and save time by reducing the number of cars on the road; and
  Research in the social sciences focuses on understanding how future 
changes in where people live and work will affect future transportation 
usage, so that planners can make early, smart investments to ensure 
that we meet future transportation needs at lower costs.
  As chairman of the Environment, Technology and Standards Subcommittee 
of the Committee on Science, I introduced H.R. 3551, the Surface 
Transportation Research and Development Act. This legislation, which 
was approved by the full Science Committee on February 4:
  Provides necessary but prudent increases to transportation research 
funding;
  Increases stakeholder input to ensure that the people who must 
implement and use the research agree that it is worthwhile and 
applicable;
  Creates the highest quality research through increased competition 
and peer review; and
  Ensures greater accountability so that this research actually 
supports the goals of our transportation system.
  I am pleased that Chairman Young and his staff have worked very 
closely with me, and my staff, to incorporate much of my legislation 
and its intent into TEA-LU. While I think we all agree that we wish we 
could have provided more funding for research, I must especially thank 
Mr. Young for ensuring that as funding for TEA-LU was reduced from $375 
billion to $275 billion, research was treated fairly. That wasn't the 
case 6 years ago during consideration of TEA-21. And I want to thank 
Mr. Young for his pledge to work with me to continue to improve the 
research title and its funding in conference as we discuss these issues 
with the Senate.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. On behalf of the Committee on Ways and Means, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) and the gentleman from

[[Page H1805]]

North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) are recognized for 15 minutes each.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today this transportation bill contains a number of 
tax-related provisions, and I am going to summarize those very quickly. 
But the thrust of what we are doing here with these tax provisions, and 
I think the most important thing to point out, is that with these 
changes we have added $18 billion over 6 years to pay for highway 
funding here in the United States, and that was a very important part 
of getting the number high enough so that we could do at least the 
basic necessities through the transportation bill that is on the floor 
today.
  So I want to commend my chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas), for working with the chairman of the full Committee on 
Transportation, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), in arriving at 
these approaches to increasing the revenues going into the Highway 
Trust Fund. I will just briefly summarize what those are.
  The tax provisions of this bill extend the authority to spend money 
out of the Highway Trust Fund and updates the purposes for which that 
money can be spent.
  It extends the gas tax through 2011 at current rates and maintains 
the current law deficit protection rule that requires a 2-year cushion 
of reserves in the Highway Trust Fund.
  It increases Highway Trust Fund receipts by $18 billion over 6 years 
to pay for the highway spending authorized in this bill. Receipts are 
raised by, number one, reducing the fuel tax evasion that goes on 
around the country; number two, crediting the Highway Trust Fund with 
the full gas tax; and, number three, by restructuring the ethanol 
subsidy so that the trust fund is made whole, so the trust fund does 
not lose money to the general fund as a result of the ethanol subsidy.
  The bill also extends the ethanol subsidy through 2010.
  It simplifies and reforms the rules relating to certain highway 
excise taxes.
  It provides alternative minimum tax relief, particularly for small 
businesses and farmers.

                              {time}  1145

  Finally, it extends the enhanced section 179 expensing for small 
businesses, allowing them for 2 more years to expense up to $100,000 of 
purchases for use in their small business.
  So, Mr. Chairman, those are the essential provisions of the tax 
portion of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, included in this bill is a provision drawn from H.R. 
3119, the ``Renewable Fuels and Transportation Infrastructure 
Enhancement Act of 2003.'' This is a proposal which I introduced along 
with my friend and colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof). I am very pleased that this 
provision has, through this action, been included in this legislation.
  The bill restructures the ethanol tax incentive from an excise tax 
exemption to an excise tax credit, and it eliminates hundreds of 
millions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse by those blending 
gasoline with ethanol.
  The provisions attributed to the ethanol tax incentive will add up to 
$14.2 billion in revenues to the Highway Trust Fund over the 6-year 
life of the transportation bill. As we wrestle with the size of the 
highway package, let us keep in mind this provision alone relating to 
ethanol is generating $14.2 billion in revenues.
  Mr. Chairman, the provision is important for a number of reasons, but 
I want to especially mention the jobs that will flow from this highway 
bill. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, each billion 
dollars spent on transportation and highway projects creates 47,500 
jobs. Therefore, the ethanol proposal will create an additional 674,500 
jobs, much-needed jobs, in this economy.
  Separately, the ethanol industry itself is a significant generator of 
additional jobs for our economy. The industry has built 74 ethanol 
plants, created nearly 150,000 new jobs, 12,000 jobs in America's 
beleaguered manufacturing sector. In 2004 alone, the industry will add 
22,000 new jobs and more than $1.3 billion to the gross output of the 
American economy.
  The industry is going to continue to grow with this legislation. 
There are thirteen plants already under construction and dozens more in 
the final planning stage.
  Further, as newly-drafted, this ethanol tax incentive will have no 
negative impact on the Highway Trust Fund. According to the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, it will save the Federal Government more 
than $3.2 billion in lower farm program payments this year.
  The ethanol tax incentive makes a particular difference with the 
creation of jobs in rural America. The one new 40 million gallon 
ethanol plant can expand the economic base of the local economy by $110 
million, creating as many as 694 permanent new jobs throughout the 
entire economy and generating $1.2 million in new tax revenues for 
State and local governments. Beyond all of that, it increases the local 
average basis of corn by an estimated 5 cents to 10 cents per bushel.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation is suffering from a growing energy crisis, a 
stagnant economy where job development is scarce, particularly across 
rural America. That is why Congress's commitment to the increased 
production and use of ethanol is so important.
  This brings me to my next point, the one issue where the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) and I will continue to work, because this 
provision was left out of the bill. Other domestically-produced 
renewable fuels can and should have a role in our total fuel strategies 
as a Nation. To this end, I specifically encourage the inclusion of a 
new tax incentive for biodiesel, consistent with the agreement reached 
during the energy bill conference last year.
  Together, ethanol and biodiesel can enhance the country's energy 
independence, increase domestic fuel supplies, reduce crude oil 
imports, reduce the U.S. trade deficit, and improve air quality. 
Together, the transportation and ethanol sectors are creating jobs 
across America. This bill establishes that good transportation policy 
and good energy policy can go hand in hand.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  There are many good things in this highway bill. One that I would 
like to highlight at this particular point came out of the Committee on 
Ways and Means which I had the privilege to offer, and that was the 
provision that repeals the 4.8 cents-per-gallon of fuel receipts from 
the use in motor boats and small engine equipment be retained in the 
general fund. As a result, the full fuel tax will be credited to the 
Highway Trust Fund and subsequently transferred to the Aquatic 
Resources Trust Fund where it belongs. It increases the Aquatic 
Resources Trust Fund receipts by .7 billion dollars over 6 years.
  Anyone who is concerned about the waterways, as I know the gentleman 
in the chair is certainly concerned about the Chesapeake Bay, these are 
very important dollars that are desperately needed in these areas; and 
I congratulate my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means for 
including that.
  Unfortunately, when this comes up to a final vote sometime tomorrow 
on the highway bill, unless there is a dramatic correction in the way 
the funds are distributed, I will be forced to vote against it. In my 
24 years in Congress, I have never voted against a roads bill. I have 
supported it; and, as a matter of fact, I very much enjoyed the time 
that I spent on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  The committee has been frustrated by the reduction in the funding 
that they had anticipated and, as a result, they have treated the donor 
States very, very unfairly. Right now, the donor States are guaranteed 
approximately 90 percent of the monies that they pay into the Federal 
fund. This is

[[Page H1806]]

dramatically reduced. States such as Ohio, Tennessee, North Carolina, 
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas, California, Arizona, and that 
is not a complete list, are going to find themselves losing up to 25 
percent of their gas revenue that will no longer come back into their 
State.
  I would ask my colleagues from New York and Massachusetts to look 
carefully at what is going on here. Even though the New England States 
and many of those States will be gaining, it is still wrong. It is 
wrong. Those of us in these States that are donor States are all fast-
growing areas. We have a desperate need for highways and improvements.
  I would like to support this bill, and I will, if the gentleman from 
Georgia's amendment is passed by the House. I would be proud to stand 
by my colleagues and vote for this bill, even though we would only 
receive back approximately 90 percent of what we paid in, but at this 
time we just have to wait and see.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask at the appropriate time that all Members 
not only just consider their own district but also consider the 
fairness of their vote. This matter must be corrected, and I would hope 
that the committee would look very, very hard at the amendment that is 
offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) at the time that it 
is voted on, whether it be this evening or tomorrow morning.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I have learned that my cosponsor on the 
portion of ethanol tax that is included in this bill, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), is not participating in debate this 
morning because he is attending, tragically, the funeral of his mother. 
We will all remember the gentleman from Missouri in our thoughts and 
prayers as he deals with this issue, even while the work of the 
Congress continues.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Mrs. Jones).
  (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), for yielding me this time.
  I want to add my condolences also to our colleague, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof). I had an opportunity to speak with him 
yesterday, and as well as he can be he is doing okay, and for the 
Record, we did win the basketball game for the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Hulshof) last night against the Georgetown faculty. He is a member 
of my team.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3550 as it currently stands 
but ask that we take into account the need to do some work in 
conference. Transportation is a crucial aspect of our economy. This 
bill is not only a transportation bill, but it is also a jobs bill. We 
must work together to put forth a comprehensive highway bill.
  I want to give my colleagues some general economic facts. Maybe I 
will skip over a few.
  According to the American Road and Transportation Builders 
Association, the transportation construction industry employs 2.5 
million Americans and generates more than $200 billion in U.S. economic 
activity. A $100 million investment in highway and bridge improvements 
yields 4,750 jobs across the economy, with less than 25 percent of 
those in the actual construction field. This same level of investment 
also generates $200 million in family income, $54 million in Federal 
income tax and Social Security and more than $6 million in State and 
local tax revenues.
  Assuming a similar effect in the great State of Ohio, the Ohio 
Department of Transportation's 2004 major new construction program 
totals $400 million, and that will support the employment of 19,000 
people. The top 12 percent of Ohio's most congested freeway sections 
experience 45 percent of all freeway accidents in the State. The Ohio 
Department of Transportation's major new construction program is 
expected to total $400 million during the next several years, and it 
will help to improve many of these high-crash and congested locations 
and reduce accidents by between 30 and 50 percent.
  There is one place right in my congressional district that is called 
Dead Man's Curve, and the reason it is called Dead Man's Curve is 
because the curve is so distinct that it has caused the death of so 
many truckers and regular passengers or drivers through my area.
  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 
each critically injured survivor of an auto accident costs an average 
of $1.1 million in medical costs and lost productivity. Each fatality 
of a crash represents a loss of $977,000 in lifetime economic costs to 
society.
  Ohio is only 35th in geographic size but has a disproportionately 
large transportation system. Ohio has the Nation's tenth largest 
highway network, the fifth highest volume of traffic, both car and 
truck traffic, the Nation's fourth largest interstate network, and the 
second largest inventory of bridges. Ohio has such a large 
transportation system because it is a populous State with a 
manufacturing economy, and it lies in the middle of America's 
population and economic centers.
  Within a day's drive, Ohio is accessible to 50 percent of North 
America's population and 70 percent of North America's manufacturing 
capacity. Ohio's transportation supports the vast Ohio economy. If Ohio 
were a nation, it would be the world's 20th largest economy.
  Ohio faces unprecedented transportation challenges. It must expand 
its 1960's transportation system to meet the 21st century demands. 
Ohio's vast interstate system was built from 1950 to 1960 to meet the 
demands of the 1980s. It is now 2004, and nearly all of our urban 
interstate routes are over capacity.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to close with this: This bill is so very 
important to the State of Ohio. We are a donor State. We want to see 
that this gets done. We need the jobs in Ohio, and I encourage all of 
my colleagues to work in support of this legislation.
  Let us get to conference. Let us take care of the issues and get it 
done. Jobs are needed in Ohio.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers at this time, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, this bill is long overdue, and I want to 
thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). They have been working hard for a long time 
on the bill. The committee has put together the best bill they could, 
working within the constraints imposed upon them.
  The obstacle here comes from an administration that is fundamentally 
opposed to government investment in the infrastructure. I fear that the 
President's opposition will further slow our economic recovery and put 
a brake on economic growth for years to come.
  My hometown of Los Angeles has a well-earned reputation as the most 
congested region of the country, a status that it has held for many 
years. Each Angeleno wastes an average of 52 extra hours stuck in 
traffic each year, time that could be spent working or with their 
families. The overall economic costs of this congestion is estimated at 
$12.8 billion per year, just in the Los Angeles area.

                              {time}  1200

  That is close to $13 billion that could be better invested in 
business and job growth. Instead, it is being burned up in traffic.
  Frustrating as it is for the people who live there, Los Angeles' 
congestion causes problems for the rest of America too. The seaports of 
Los Angeles and Long Beach are the first and second busiest container 
ports in the United States. More than 20 cents of every dollar of goods 
exported from the United States each year, and that is $42 billion of 
goods, passes through California ports every year. Getting these goods 
from American factories to foreign consumers is critical to our 
economic recovery. And the goods cannot get to the foreign consumers if 
they cannot get across the highways to those ports.
  We need this bill. I am disappointed that the constraints imposed on 
us have prevented Congress from doing all it must do to improve our 
transportation infrastructure.
  I urge full support of this bill.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers. I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers. I urge passage 
of this bill and yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H1807]]

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Aviation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Lipinski) for his hard work on this bill. This bill will fund thousands 
of critical highway bridge and transportation projects across the 
United States, putting millions to work, maintaining and improving our 
critical transportation infrastructure. Unfortunately, it is not enough 
to both catch up with the maintenance backlog and make the needed 
capacity improvements.
  It is not for lack of trying by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Lipinski) or the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), or the chairman or the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), 
but at the insistence of the White House they insisted that the bill be 
reduced by $100 billion.
  That means thousands more weight-limited bridges across this country 
and detours; it means more congestion because the White House says we 
cannot afford to invest in America. That means 800,000 jobs a year that 
will not be created, 4.8 million over the life of the bill.
  The White House also objects to the fact that this bill does not gut 
the environmental laws, so they have threatened to veto. If I were 
sitting in the White House and I presided over the lives of 2.8 million 
jobs, as has President Bush in a so-called jobless recovery, I would be 
a little bit more anxious to get out and cut ribbons for critical 
projects to put real Americans to work on real needs and create real 
jobs. But not this White House. They say they will veto the bill. Is it 
an April fool or are they just fools at the White House?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Honda).
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by commending the 
gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Ranking Member Oberstar), as well as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Petri) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), for their hard 
work, superb leadership, and commitment to bipartisan and sound 
transportation policy.
  There is a great deal in this legislation for which to be proud. The 
bill protects the core transportation programs while creating new 
programs to fund projects of regional and national significance and to 
improve national corridors.
  The bill also bolsters its requirements, recognizing that it is not 
feasible simply to build more highways. However, there is one area in 
which this bill is grossly deficient and that is funding. Let there be 
no mistake, the $275 billion bill before us today is not the 
committee's first choice. Rather, the committee first marked up a $375 
billion bill, a level commensurate with the U.S. Department of 
Transportation's own estimation for the maintenance and improvement of 
our Nation's highways, bridges, and transit systems.
  Unfortunately, that $375 billion bill has been shelved in response to 
the President's threat to veto any properly funded surface 
transportation bill.
  Remembering how he so artfully pushed through sweeping tax cuts for 
the wealthy, I am appalled that he now practices a misguided form of 
fiscal discipline that undermines State and local efforts to enhance 
transportation infrastructure and that also thwarts job creation.
  The Department of Transportation has determined for every $1 billion 
invested in Federal highway and transit spending, 47,500 jobs are 
created or sustained. It is daunting, then, to consider the impact that 
the $100 billion cut in TEA LU will have on job creation in the U.S. 
For all its promises, this legislation represents a lost opportunity to 
reignite the slow job growth that plagues our Nation.
  I hope that this legislation moves forward, that we can achieve the 
Senate passed level of $318 billion, a level that would create 1.8 
million more jobs and $235 billion more economic activity than the 
level imposed upon us by the Bush administration today.
  I would like to thank the chairman and ranking members of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for their unwavering 
dedication to sound transportation policy.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska 
(Chairman Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Oberstar), and the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). I think they should be commended for the 
great job they have done given the absurdly arbitrary constraints they 
were forced to work under. They have done a terrific job. I mean that 
sincerely.
  After decades of investments to meet an expanding Nation and a 
growing population, the gentleman from New Jersey, who 12 years ago, 13 
years ago started the whole process of TEA 21, Congressman Bob Roe from 
the eighth district, is very happy with the work, I am sure, that we 
have done over the last several months.
  I supported TEA LU because it was the right thing to do. This 
administration has threatened a veto. We shall see what we shall see.
  In terms of family-wage job creation, in terms of reducing 
congestion, in terms of remaining competitive with other nations, I 
believe we are missing a great opportunity to make a difference in our 
economic future. As the process moves forward, we must band together 
and fight for a better bill. I believe we will.
  I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention, the chairman's 
attention, one of what I consider the very important provisions that 
will be included in the manager's amendment: the Department of 
Transportation should give priority to those public transit projects 
which add to our system of national defense. Historically, we built our 
highway system for national defense. We made many needed changes to our 
aviation system to improve its ability to withstand threats to national 
security. 9/11 highlighted for those of us living with families in the 
tri-state area, for instance, how dependent we are on our Nation's 
transportation system, particularly in a time of crisis.
  According to the report of the National Academies on ``Making the 
Nation Safer, the Role of Science and Technology in Countering 
Terrorism,'' the ability to quickly recover and reconstitute 
transportation systems and services is crucial for limiting the 
cascading effects of terrorist attacks.
  We cannot overstate the importance of mass transportation and mass 
transit to moving people safely at critical times and places.
  I want to thank the manager for addressing the essence of the 
national security amendment I offered in committee. We are authorizing 
a study in this bill to look at the value of public transportation 
systems, the value placed on national security in project planning. It 
will also examine the ability of such systems to accommodate the 
evacuation from critical locations and in times of emergency. The 
information we learn should assist metropolitan areas in the 
development of the regional emergency response plans that coordinate 
highway and public transportation systems.
  I am hopeful the results will ensure that transit agencies and the 
TSA are looking at response plans in terms of a comprehensive 
vulnerability assessment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for the purpose 
of a colloquy with the chairman.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the gentleman from 
Alaska for his assistance over the past several years regarding an 
issue that is negatively impacting two transit systems in my 
congressional district: Red Rose Transit in Lancaster and BARTA, Berks 
Area Reading Transit Authority.
  They join over 50 other transit agencies across the country facing 
the same problem. And I have a list of these systems that I will submit 
for the Record.
  As the chairman knows, under current law transit systems that serve 
communities in urbanized areas exceeding 200,000 in population 
according to the most recent census lose their local flexibility in the 
use of section 5307 Federal transit funds.
  The chairman has been very helpful in protecting these systems from 
losing

[[Page H1808]]

their flexibility over the past couple of years to provide a bridge to 
the reauthorization of the transportation spending that we are 
considering today.
  While I appreciate the language that is currently in the bill 
extending the flexibility protection through fiscal year 2005, it does 
not go far enough to mitigate the financial crisis facing small transit 
systems in the fastest growing communities throughout the country. 
Instead of encouraging the growth of transits in these emerging 
communities, current law penalizes them.
  Red Rose Transit and BARTA stand to lose access of upwards of $1 
million in Federal transit funds. They are being treated more like 
transit systems in big cities than the more suburban and rural 
communities that they actually serve.
  Mr. Chairman, we need a long-term or permanent solution to this 
problem. The current language in this bill does not go far enough. It 
is not a matter that these systems need more time to get their books in 
order; it is that they cannot financially make ends meet under current 
law.
  They are already looking beyond 2005 to see what routes to cut, which 
workers to lay off, and which buses to park in the garage because they 
cannot afford to run them. Passengers will lose their transportation to 
their jobs, the elderly will lose their transportation to the doctor, 
and low-income families will lose their ride to the grocery store.
  I close by asking that, as you go to conference on this 
transportation bill, you keep in mind the difficult future these 
transit systems face and that you would work with us to find a solution 
that would help these transit systems sustain their operations and meet 
the growing needs of their communities.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania very frankly for his 
hard work on this issue. It is a pleasure to work with him.
  I understand the needs these small transit systems face. I certainly 
support the growth, as I told the gentleman personally, of transit 
throughout the United States, especially in the thriving smaller 
communities such as in the gentleman's congressional district.
  I want to assure my colleague that, as we go forward with this bill, 
I welcome his continued assistance on this matter and the gentleman's 
knowledge. I look forward to working with my colleague on this issue as 
we go through the conference to finding a reasonable and responsible 
solution to this problem, and I can assure my colleague that probably 
will happen.
  Mr. PITTS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for the efforts which they have put forth 
in working on this bill.
  I would like to talk to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) 
for just a moment about the continuing challenges before us in getting 
our State transportation departments to fully obligate funds under the 
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program known as 
CMAQ.
  In my State of Texas, more than $230 million in unobligated CMAQ 
balances have piled up, even though areas like my own district in the 
Dallas-Fort Worth area are challenged in their efforts to address the 
harmful health effects of mobile sources and other emissions upon my 
constituents. Other regions in my State and many other parts of the 
country are challenged as well.
  This bill, like the two before it in 1991 and 1998, provides targeted 
resources to the States to help fund the mandate of clean air in many 
metropolitan and local areas across the country, areas that account for 
about one of every two people in this Nation.
  We allocate clean air funds, CMAQ spending authority, to States based 
on local air quality needs. Yet, there is no requirement that States 
spend a fair share of the funds we provide air quality improvement 
projects.
  All of us have heard the pleas from our State officials, governors 
and legislators alike, about unfunded mandates and how they challenge 
our States. Yet, in this case, States do not want us to include any 
assurances to local areas that they can count on a steady and 
predictable flow of CMAQ dollars to help them meet mandates under the 
Clean Air Act.
  Today, this Congress is again providing the resources for this 
purpose but not requiring States to pass these funds to the local 
areas.
  In this Chamber, our States and many other interests have also told 
us that the certainty of a 6-year bill is crucial to the States as they 
plan for transportation investments.
  My simple request is that we provide more certainty to local areas 
over the next 6 years as well. After all, the CMAQ funds we are 
providing under this legislation are for local areas to assist their 
compliance efforts in meeting federally-established, health-based 
standards for clean air.
  Finally, there is added urgency to this matter. As early as next 
month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will be making its 
final designations under the new 8-hour ozone standards. A predictable 
and timely flow of CMAQ dollars will be crucial to their success in 
achieving compliance with these standards.
  It is my hope that my colleague and other House leaders in the 
conference committee will strive to deliver more certainty to local 
areas about CMAQ funding over the life of this renewal legislation.
  I would like some assurances that we will continue to work to provide 
local areas with more certainty about their CMAQ funding over the next 
6 years in this legislation.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from 
Illinois.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I would also ask that the committee give 
this issue more review and consideration as we consider future 
legislation, be it a technical correction amendments or the reopener 
legislation that the bill before us envisions.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman for his consideration of these issues, and I pledge my strong 
support to his efforts and any other member of the committee's efforts 
to make progress in this area.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I would rather be standing here today 
supporting a $375 billion transportation bill. $375 billion is what the 
U.S. Department of Transportation has said is necessary to meet our 
most basic infrastructure needs over the next 6 years. Unfortunately, 
the President insists that we not fund our transportation system 
adequately and that we not fund the hundreds of thousands of jobs that 
such a bill would create, but we must do what we can, and despite the 
funding constraints, there are many things to be proud of in the bill 
before us.
  The committee has done a remarkable job of preserving many of the 
important new initiatives in TEA LU, such as safe routes to school, 
freight intermodal connectors and, in particular, projects of national 
and regional significance. At the same time, we have maintained our 
core highway and transit programs and increased funding for critical 
initiatives such as senior transportation services and the ferry boat 
discretionary program.
  This legislation maintains the minimum guarantee funding formula 
established in TEA 21, but it contains a provision that essentially 
cuts off highway funding in fiscal year 2006 unless a law is passed in 
the interim raising the minimum guarantee to 95 percent, while 
guaranteeing States that they would receive no less than subsequent 
years, plus the cost of inflation.
  I understand the frustration expressed on this floor by the so-called 
``donor'' States. New York, as a whole, is a donor State. We send about 
$18 to $20 billion more to the Federal Government every year than we 
receive in total Federal spending. Transportation

[[Page H1809]]

is one of the few areas in which this is not the case.
  New York has invested huge amounts of money in mass transit. 
Therefore, we are more energy efficient than the country as a whole. We 
buy less gasoline, and we pay fewer gas taxes into the Highway Trust 
Fund, and apparently, because we are more efficient, because we are 
saving the country on sending money to the Middle East, we must be 
punished by getting less highway funds. That is the idea of the 95 
percent guarantee.
  Yet, New York has a lot of transportation needs with older, aging 
infrastructure, and one out of every three transit riders in the 
country, which is capped at 15 percent. It is just not right to punish 
States for being energy efficient, and, therefore, I am generally 
opposed to this provision, but it does not do it right away. It puts 
off a final decision for 2 years.
  Because of the many good features in the bill, I urge its enactment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank the gentleman 
from Alaska (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman 
Petri), as well as the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member 
Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). Their 
dedication and leadership on this legislation is commendable. I would 
also like to commend the committee staff for all their hard work on 
this bill. It has truly been a pleasure to work with them.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For 
Users, is legislation our country needs to not only maintain but also 
to grow our Nation's infrastructure.
  When I came to Congress, I followed a visionary member of the House 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. John Paul 
Hammerschmidt. Congressman Hammerschmidt served on the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure for decades, and he was instrumental 
in advancing our Nation's transportation infrastructure into the 21st 
century.
  Like Mr. Hammerschmidt, I understand the importance of passing a 
robust transportation bill that provides for infrastructure development 
across the country.
  During the last year, I traveled with the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure to examine our transportation needs. From Fort 
Smith, Arkansas, to Chicago, Illinois, we heard the same thing: Our 
Nation must invest in transportation infrastructure. Each city and 
town, even the rural areas in our States, are in dire need of 
infrastructure dollars.
  Our Nation is growing and prospering. However, our cities and towns 
are suffering from congestion and poor roads. We must continue growth 
by passing this legislation, which will allow for continued 
development. This will not only lessen congestion on our roads, but it 
will also provide for economic development across the country. This 
bill provides for growth, it provides for jobs, and it provides for 
increased safety to our traveling public.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for their dedication to passing 
this critical legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to support 
H.R. 3550.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana (Ms. Carson).
  Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much, 
my prestigious leader of the region, and certainly to the chairman and 
chairpersons of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: 
A Legacy For Users, TEA LU. This 6-year reauthorization is needed to 
continue our commitment to our Nation's infrastructure.
  Transportation is central to our Nation's economy, creating more 
jobs, and helping Americans get to work every day. Investment in our 
highways and public transportation systems results in a net gain for 
our taxpayers.
  The bill responds to many of the critical transportation problems 
facing our country.
  $67 billion is lost in worker productivity and wasted fuel every year 
because of traffic congestion. Americans sitting in traffic lose 5.7 
billion gallons of fuel and 3.6 billion hours annually.
  Investment in highways is part of the answer, but we must also be 
sure to invest in our public transit systems as well. Public transit 
decreases congestion, decreases pollution, and decreases costs for 
millions of workers.
  Unfortunately, many States are discouraged from investing in transit. 
Thirty-four States, including my home State of Indiana, has statutory 
or constitutional prohibitions on using money from the Highway Trust 
Fund for public transit. I offered an amendment to the Committee on 
Rules establishing a flexibility incentive grant program to address 
this problem and trust that as we move into the future that we will be 
able to get this concept put into law to enable the moving around of 
money for our transportation system.
  TEA LU provides $1.4 billion in funding for improving intermodal 
connections. So in order to fully utilize the potential of these 
intermodal centers, we must be sure to invest in our railroads, our 
ports.
  In the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I asked the 
railroad people if they did not think that was a unique idea to put 
people to work and that is to rebuild and modernize the railroads.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member, my leader, for this 
opportunity.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Kansas (Mr. Moran), my good friend.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to rise in support 
of a piece of legislation that I think is very important not only to 
the folks back home in Kansas but to the folks of this country, and I 
am here to in part commend the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) 
and his colleagues on the House Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure but also especially the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hastert) for his continued efforts in trying to fashion a piece of 
legislation that can succeed here in the halls of Congress.
  This legislation matters a lot to us as a Nation, matters a lot to 
Kansans that I represent. In many ways, this is about the creation of 
jobs at home. I think we often think about jobs being something that we 
see construction workers on highway projects, but I can tell my 
colleagues, from a Kansas perspective, our ability to get our 
manufactured goods to market, our ability to get our agriculture 
commodities sold in the world, very much depends on our ability to do 
that in a cost-effective, efficient way.
  This country must invest in its infrastructure. We talk today about 
the outsourcing of jobs. One of the components that can help to address 
this issue, one of the things that can make a difference, is to make 
sure that the ability to get goods to market, manufactured goods, 
agriculture commodities can be taken to market in a way that allows us 
to continue to be competitive in world markets.
  There are concerns here about the deficit. This is a bill that is 
funded by the Highway Trust Fund. What we are asking to have occur here 
is dollars that are paid for by users, by taxpayers, set aside for this 
purpose, be utilized for that purpose.
  There are many things we do in this Congress that add to the deficit, 
but spending money in a trust fund for purposes of infrastructure is 
not one of those things. I, as a conservative Member of Congress, if I 
am going to put resources dollars, hard-earned, taxpayer funding into 
the spending here in our Nation's capital, I will tell my colleagues my 
constituents are better served by the utilization of those dollars in 
building infrastructure as compared to additional bureaucracy in our 
Nation's capital.
  Put the money into projects, construction, infrastructure across our 
Nation.

                              {time}  1230

  And, finally, I know that there are concerns about the donor and 
donee issue, that States may contribute more than they receive. My 
State of Kansas is kind of neutral on this issue. We get about as many 
dollars back as we pay. And I would urge my colleagues to give the 
chairman and others the opportunity to work on this.
  It reminds me of my days in State legislature. I was a State 
legislator for 8 years. School finance is always an

[[Page H1810]]

issue, and as we tried to change the formula to improve the quality of 
education and to fund our schools across the State, you could not do it 
without additional dollars so that at least a majority of the school 
districts in our State and, therefore, their State legislators felt 
like they were better off.
  So it is important as we work on this donor-donee issue that we take 
a look at the number of dollars available for spending on the highway 
bill so that we can address the inequities that may occur if you are a 
State that is paying more money into the trust fund than you are 
receiving.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the subcommittee chairman; the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri); and the ranking members, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Lipinski); for their hard work in pushing for the highest amount 
possible for our Nation's transportation systems. It will not be easy, 
but I believe we can pass a bill that can improve our transportation 
system, even without the help of this administration.
  Why the Bush administration would be opposed to a bill that has the 
potential to create millions of jobs is beyond me. I can assure the 
President that reauthorizing TEA LU at an appropriate level will do a 
heck of a lot more for the economy than outsourcing our jobs to other 
countries.
  Transportation funding is a win-win for everyone involved. States 
will get an improved transportation infrastructure that creates 
economic development, puts people back to work, enhances safety, and 
improves local communities. America's transportation infrastructure is 
in need of significant additional funding, particularly as we struggle 
to finance the security upgrades needed to protect our transportation 
system from terrorist attacks.
  Unfortunately, we were unable to add a rail title to this bill, but 
that does not mean our rail infrastructure is taken care of. We have 
dangerously underfunded rail security, and we are now scrambling to 
protect our transit passengers. We have also ignored an underfunded 
high-speed rail, which is one of the best ways to improve citizens and 
improve congestion on our highways.
  This certainly is not the bill that most of us hoped for; but it is a 
first step, and we have nowhere to go but up. We have compromised on a 
$275 billion bill. We need to have many opportunities to make this bill 
our own and do the right thing for the traveling public.
  We need to do the right thing for this Nation's citizens. Let us pass 
this bill and let us override the President's foolish veto threat.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska, the 
chairman of the largest standing committee in the free world, for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States has benefited greatly from having a 
strong transportation network, but we are in fact approaching a 
crossroads. I am hopeful that our work on H.R. 3550 brings us one step 
closer to finding solutions to this growing problem.
  I believe H.R. 3550 is bringing us closer to our goals in my State of 
Texas to achieve our State's goal of an efficient and seamless 
transportation corridor. I commend the chairman for including the 
section addressing the streamlining of the design-build process. I was 
also pleased to see inclusions of sections that focused on interstate 
system toll pilot programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you I will continue to work with you 
and your staff to streamline the Federal design-build process to allow 
for a rolling environmental review of a multi-modal transportation 
project. I believe the inclusion of these sections are good steps in 
the right direction to address these concerns.
  I was also pleased to learn the committee leadership included 
sections for a National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement program and 
a Coordinated Border Infrastructure program, projects of national and 
regional significance. I believe that the current programs do not fully 
address the problems created by the explosion of the NAFTA trade 
traffic, and funding has often been misdirected to nonborder States and 
corridors lacking international significance. I believe the provisions 
included in this bill will greatly improve my State's transportation 
infrastructure being truly impacted by our country's increased trade 
traffic.
  In Texas, our identified transportation needs outstrip available 
funding three to one. I support legislative language that will 
guarantee States at least a 95 percent rate of return on their 
contributions to the Federal Highway Trust Fund. I look forward to 
continuing to work with the chairman and the committee to produce a 
bipartisan transportation reauthorization bill that will truly improve 
transportation infrastructure nationwide.
  We continue to work to produce a bill that adequately provides for 
our economic security, creates and sustains jobs, enhances safety, and 
continues to improve mobility for our Nation's citizens, especially my 
constituents back in Texas. We need to do no less than ensure that our 
families can spend as much time at the dinner table as they do in 
traffic now.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Larsen), a member of the committee.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of 
H.R. 3550, but I do want to note that this bill barely scratches the 
surface of America's transportation needs. At $275 billion, this bill 
is certainly a lot, but it is only slightly more than an inflationary 
increase over TEA 21. Furthermore, at this amount, the United States 
loses out on almost 4.8 million new jobs in Washington State. 
Specifically, my State could lose out on thousands and thousands of 
jobs as a result of the funding level in this bill.
  In a year when millions of Americans are looking for work, this does 
not come close to helping the thousands of Americans get back to work. 
I hope as this bill moves through this House and to conference, we can 
pursue a funding level that will meet the needs of our transportation 
systems and help provide job opportunities for more Americans.
  Having said all that, I surely want to thank the chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young); the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri); and the ranking 
members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), for their work on this bill, which has 
helped out the Pacific Northwest.
  Specifically, TEA LU doubles the funding for the Ferry Boat 
Discretionary program. The Puget Sound is home to the largest ferry 
system in the country, and these funds are vital to the Washington 
State ferries' efforts to service and replace aging vessels. I look 
forward to working with all of you in conference to increasing these 
funds in order to keep America's ferry systems afloat for years to 
come.
  In addition, the bill includes funding for projects of national and 
regional significance. The Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle, damaged by 
an earthquake in February 2001, is threatening to collapse and shut off 
the transport of goods from ports in Washington State to locations all 
across the country. So I hope we can further improve this new and 
exciting program.
  In conclusion, I want to say that I hope the final version of this 
legislation will make very clear that the existing high-priority 
corridors continue to be eligible for funding. I also hope that the 
House conferees in this legislation will make every effort to strike 
the restrictions in the trade corridor provision approved by the other 
body limiting freight corridor only to multi-State corridors.
  Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank the committee leadership and the 
committee staff for their hard work on this bill, and I look forward to 
working with all of you on these issues as the bill moves forward.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H1811]]

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for his 
incredibly hard work. As I look back over the process and the number of 
things that he has had to balance, the needs and the desires, most of 
which are somewhat in sync with each other, in that everyone wants to 
have the best possible transportation system, the gentleman from Alaska 
has worked very, very hard to do that.
  This is a bill that improves infrastructure for America. It is a bill 
that creates jobs. It is a bill that creates economic development. In 
my district in North Carolina, we have a distinct shortage of 
interstate highways. And it is a known fact that 80 percent of all 
businesses like to be and need to be within 10 miles of an interstate 
highway. So for that reason alone, I would ask support of all our 
colleagues on this bill that provides the economic development and 
attracts capital to areas all over our country and gives us the ability 
to distribute goods and services, which stimulates that economy, which 
brings and attracts capital, and which creates jobs.
  The issue of highway safety, the issue of congestion is addressed 
very well in this bill. All of us, especially the chairman, wish that 
this were a larger bill. However, we are suffering through some very 
tough economic times, fighting and winning the war on terrorism. The 
chairman has addressed this issue. He has made it very plain, as the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has as well, that we will 
quickly revisit this whole subject of the size of the bill and continue 
to improve our infrastructure for Americans and job creation.
  So, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would again like to thank both our 
chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for balancing the 
many critical needs, the desires, and the wants of all Americans to 
move this country forward, to create opportunities, to create jobs, to 
grow this economy, and to keep us free, financially viable, and in a 
position to support the military that is doing so great a job, along 
with our coalition partners, in winning the war on terrorism.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Lampson), a member of the committee.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in support of H.R. 3550, the bill that provides $275 
billion over the next 6 years for highways and public transit 
throughout the country.
  Originally, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
introduced a bill that ensured that at a $375 billion level we would be 
able to sustain both our Nation's infrastructure and encourage 
sustained commercial growth over the next decade. Well, this debate is 
about difficult choices. It is easy to stand in front of this House and 
demand more tax cuts, but it is a greater challenge to own up to our 
responsibilities as elected officials and to ensure that our Nation has 
the capability to expand our avenues of commerce.
  Our Nation's highway system is an irreplaceable cog in the movement 
of goods and services and our Nation's role in international trades. I 
represent a district with six seaports, and my constituents recognize 
the need for a seamless intermodal system that incorporates ports, 
rail, and highways. And I would be lying today if I said that I was not 
disappointed that the Republican leadership has limited the size and 
scope of commercial growth in this bill; yet I feel this legislation 
and its passage today is vital to our Nation because it represents an 
investment and a commitment to our infrastructure.
  One of the critical elements of this legislation is the creation of 
jobs. Every $1 billion invested in our Federal highway and transit 
system creates 47,500 jobs. And given the net job loss over the last 3 
years in this country, this bill will provide needed relief to workers.
  This legislation is also environmentally responsible and will help 
communities achieve greater environmental benchmarks. This legislation 
ensures the protection of the CMAQ program, which is crucial to 
addressing concerns arising from highway congestion and insufficient 
air quality.
  With the Houston, Galveston and Beaumont, Port Arthur areas that I 
represent classified as nonattainment areas, it is important to the 
region that I represent to ensure the viability of the CMAQ program. So 
let us do the right thing for working Americans. Let us pass this bill 
for the good of our economy and to create more jobs.
  And I want to take a few seconds to thank Chairman Young and Ranking 
Member Oberstar, Chairman Petri, and Ranking Member Lipinski for their 
hard work and leadership on this bill. These Members and the committee 
staff have worked tirelessly on the legislation, and their efforts 
should not go unnoticed.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, may I have a compilation of the time 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar) has 12\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  We have heard the expression, ``It's the economy, stupid.'' Well, 
it's the infrastructure, stupid. It's jobs, stupid.
  I know that the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), 
thinks about jobs all the time, as does our ranking member, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). 
It is jobs, jobs, jobs. And that is what the infrastructure of this 
country provides.
  We have a bill here that is $100 billion less than it should be. To 
my simple math that works out to a loss of 4.5 million jobs. We are 
losing $600 billion worth of economic activities over the next 5 or 6 
years. I do not understand an administration that is a ``donor'' 
administration in terms of its jobs that it has not created. By 
supporting a bigger bill, it could be a ``donee'' administration and 
actually create jobs, and that is what we need in this country today.
  There is a controversy, I understand, about donor-donee. There does 
not have to be. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), both want a 95 percent guarantee for 
every State, and they had it in the bill that we should have passed. 
And I say to the people who want to have that 95 percent guarantee, do 
not change this bill; vote for a bigger bill. We can afford it. We can 
be fiscally responsible. It is an investment in this Nation to have the 
bigger bill.

                              {time}  1245

  But we will do part of the job by passing this one today.
  I happen to represent the whole California-Mexico border in this 
country. I have in my district 250,000 people crossing the border every 
day and thousands and thousands of trucks. I want to thank our 
committee for providing a ``border infrastructure fund'' to help 
address the needs that this international traffic places on our local 
communities. These local communities do not have the funds and should 
not be responsible. The border infrastructure fund gives us the ability 
for the Federal Government to meet its responsibility.
  So I say, Let's have the jobs. Let's get rid of the donor-donee 
controversy. I know the gentleman from Alaska wants to do that and the 
gentleman from Minnesota wants to do it. Hopefully, down the line we 
will do it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, it is incomprehensible that we 
are considering this legislation today under the threat of a 
Presidential veto. This is, first and foremost, a jobs bill. If the 
administration follows through with the threat to veto this bill, they 
will be denying tens of thousands of workers in New York and nationwide 
good jobs.
  I am confused by those who wrap themselves in a cloak of fiscal 
responsibility when it comes to government spending and yet blindly 
support tax

[[Page H1812]]

cuts which have not produced new jobs. Jobs, not tax cuts that benefit 
the wealthiest Americans, stimulate the economy and put food on the 
table of working families.
  Most disturbing about the President's veto threat is that even the 
bill we are considering today provides inadequate funding to meet our 
Nation's overwhelming transportation needs. The bill we are being asked 
to consider falls $100 billion short of the $375 billion bipartisan 
bill initially passed by our committee based on the Department of 
Transportation's own assessment of our Nation's needs.
  Transportation spending is a win-win proposition. It creates jobs and 
improves safety and efficiency on our roads. This veto threat is just 
the latest example of continued misplaced priorities from this 
administration.
  We need a real economic stimulus. We know that each $1 billion of 
Federal funds invested in infrastructure creates approximately 47,000 
jobs and generates $6.2 billion in economic activity. That is the kind 
of boost that our economy needs.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, the gentleman from Minnesota and the gentleman from Illinois 
for bringing this bill to the floor. I will support this bill because 
we must move this process forward. However, this bill is a far cry from 
the real investment needed to improve our infrastructure.
  Finally, I would like to stress the importance of ensuring that the 
minimum guarantee formula stays at 90.5 percent. Our transportation 
policy now directs funding to the areas of the country where it is 
needed the most. It would be unwise to punish States with aging 
infrastructure and efficient mass transit systems by cutting off their 
funding. There is simply no way to reach a 95 percent minimum guarantee 
in a $275 billion bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this 
legislation.
  First of all, I want to commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Lipinski).
  This bill will obviously provide opportunities for the creation of 
jobs in all of the districts across the country and especially in mine. 
However, the bill comes up a bit short because I do not think that we 
paid enough attention to rail transportation. Amtrak runs 50 trains out 
of my district in Chicago each and every day. Yet there is no money for 
Amtrak, and there is no money for rail safety.
  I do want to highlight the fact, though, that this bill does in fact 
increase funding for the Access to Jobs program, a program that will 
take individuals from the inner cities and rural communities to where 
75 percent of the new jobs are being created in what we call suburban 
outlying districts.
  Overall, it is a good bill. I wish there were more money. I wish we 
could have looked at Amtrak in a different way and rail safety. I 
strongly support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the reauthorization of the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. I commend Chairman 
Young, Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Oberstar, and especially the 
senior Democrat from Illinois Republican Lipinski for all of your hard 
work on this bill.
  Our transportation system is vital to democracy. It is through our 
transportation network that we are able to move commerce and people 
with reliability and consistency. Every day millions of people travel 
our highways, and transit systems. This bill helps to ensure that we 
modernize our ailing transportation system and protect workers.
  The bill contains a number of projects that will directly improve the 
roads and infrastructure in my Congressional District. This bill comes 
at a time when our economy is in need of a significant boost. We have 
lost over 3 million jobs in the last 3 years. My Congressional District 
has lost over 140,000 jobs in the last 30 years. While this bill is a 
modest investment in our Nation's highways and transit systems, I am 
disappointed that we did not report out the original bill, which 
contained a $375 billion funding level. That kind of funding level 
would have given us an historic opportunity to put Americans back to 
work.
  Also, I am disappointed that more was not done to stabilize Amtrak. 
In fact, the House Bill contains no funding for Amtrak. Amtrak is a 
vital part of the economy in Chicago, and the Nation. Amtrak operates 
more than 50 trains into and out of the City of Chicago each day. These 
include an extensive network of long-distance trains that provide 
service to the East and West coasts, the Gulf of Mexico and Canada. 
Last year, Amtrak transported more than 2 million passengers. The 
failure to include funding for Amtrak sends a negative signal. In 
addition, this bill provides no funding for rail security to adequately 
address concerns regarding terrorism. We must learn from the tragedy in 
Spain and other attacks on rail systems throughout the country.

  I am pleased with the increase in funding for the Job Access and 
Reverse Commute Program. This program assists low-income individuals 
and welfare recipients get to where the jobs are being created. In 
other words, data suggests that three-fourths of new jobs are being 
created in the suburbs. Therefore, we must find ways to get people from 
the inner cities and rural areas to where the jobs are. The Job Access 
and Reverse Commute program will provide over $1 billion in funding 
over the next six years.
  Therefore, I am pleased that this important bill is finally moving 
forward. While I wish that the Committee had done more in funding 
important priorities--failure to act could lead to terrible 
consequences as it relates to our transportation infrastructure. Thus, 
I am pleased to support this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
  (Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from 
Alaska has dedicated years to this bill. I applaud him for that. I know 
it is less dollars than he would like to see because he does understand 
the problems we face in this Nation. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 
done an excellent job on the subcommittee. The gentleman from Minnesota 
has done a wonderful job working his side of the aisle trying to bring 
together a good bill for this country.
  I represent California. I have parts of Orange County, L.A. and San 
Bernardino Counties. We are right on what is called the Alameda 
Corridor. All the trucks and trains coming from the harbor at Long 
Beach and Los Angeles come through our districts. Unless you live 
there, it is almost unbelievable to realize the impact that we face and 
our commuters face trying to go to and from work not only with the 
truck traffic from the harbors and the airports on our freeways but 
with the trains when you are trying to cross railroad tracks and at-
grade crossings. Nothing that I can think of is more important that 
what we are doing this year and we have done in recent years in this 
bill.
  The Founding Fathers had an idea of what the Federal Government 
should do, and one is to protect and defend our borders which we are 
trying and I believe we are doing an excellent job through the budget 
on, and the other is to ensure interstate commerce. In this generation, 
ensuring interstate commerce is making sure that goods can flow on our 
freeway systems and our rails to provide the goods and services that we 
need in this Nation. Our roads are coming close to being in a gridlock 
level in the Los Angeles area and Orange County. We need to resolve the 
problems we face there today.
  TEA LU does pay special attention to the infrastructure deficiencies 
facing our Nation's truck traffic and the freight and it is tremendous 
some of the issues we have to deal with.
  In Orange County alone, in my district on the Alameda Corridor 
through our cities currently we have 50 trains a day. In the near 
future, those trains will go up to 135 trains per day. The people who 
have to cross those crossings realize that that is a tremendous burden 
placed upon them and a tremendous burden placed upon businesses who 
have to ship their goods and people have to get to and from work. It is 
just unbelievable.
  In one city that I represent, Placentia, in a 5-mile-long stretch, 
there are 11 at-grade crossings plus the associated communities around 
them. When a train starts going through that town, the whistle blows 
from the beginning they reach that city limit till the

[[Page H1813]]

end because of the requirements placed upon them. The people are being 
overly burdened based on how long they are having to sit and wait to 
get across those tracks. That is one project that I believe we need to 
effectively deal with.
  The chairman has been very gracious on, I believe, all our states, 
but I will speak to California, on allowing projects that need to be 
put in this budget up front to help resolve some of the immediate 
impact that has been placed upon our State. He has made countless trips 
to California, I met with him on several different functions, 
explaining his vision for the future. That is why he calls it a legacy 
for our future, because of his vision of what should happen in the 
future of this Nation and how people should benefit, from the minute 
they get up in the morning and get in their car till their car comes 
home at night.
  We have a wonderful bill before us. There are going to be some 
amendments, some I am going to oppose, but I honor the gentleman from 
Alaska for this great bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Transportation 
Equity Act. I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for their hard 
work on the legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is critical to meeting our country's 
transportation needs, but it also addresses a very serious problem that 
many of my colleagues who represent rural areas face. That problem is 
the virtually total absence of broadband services in rural areas.
  The rural interstate corridor communications study included in this 
legislation will examine how fiber optic cable and wireless technology 
can be deployed to establish high-speed broadband service in rural and 
underserved areas, to improve intelligent transportation systems and 
homeland security applications, and to spur economic development in 
those rural areas. This important feasibility study is the first step 
toward increasing the access to affordable high-speed Internet services 
in rural areas. The benefits of this study will be of tremendous 
assistance to attracting technology-based companies and information age 
jobs to those rural communities.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of TEA LU because it is 
the most effective economic stimulus package this House has considered 
since our economy began to slump. No, I am not talking about another 
tax cut. I am talking about a transportation bill. Infrastructure 
investments are the smartest, most profitable long-term job creation 
initiatives available to us at the Federal level at this time.
  By investing our resources in transportation projects, we accomplish 
what annual tax cuts have thus far failed to do. We create good jobs, 
jobs that actually pay a living wage. Workers in these jobs support 
their families by performing tasks that also improve their communities. 
Efficient transportation systems will also allow people to spend less 
time commuting and more time with their families. Traffic adds hours to 
a parent's workday, making it even more difficult to balance the 
competing demands of work and family.
  Vote for TEA LU.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member and the chairman for the hard, collaborative work that 
was done.
  I, too, rise in support of TEA LU and with a particular inquiry and 
that is to the President of the United States. Mr. President, work with 
us. Jobs are needed, but, more importantly, security is needed and 
improved infrastructure is needed.
  Let me applaud this committee for acknowledging the needs in the 18th 
Congressional District that include a number of very vital projects. 
One, for example, project is Row House, a community development 
corporation to construct bicycle and pedestrian trails to enhance an 
already depressed neighborhood that is coming back. Let me be grateful 
for the project dealing with the Old Spanish Trail and Alameda 
Corridors that will assist in our technology center.
  But, more importantly, I need to cite for this body the importance of 
language that was agreed to that dealt with racial profiling. We all 
know the story of I-95, but how many of us know the story of 59 North? 
I appreciate very much the idea that racial profiling language was put 
in the bill to inhibit racial profiling in transportation facilities 
across the motion. I ask my colleagues to support the legislation and 
to support my amendment regarding flexibility in funding for bicycle 
paths and other transportation needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, H.R. 3550, the 
Transportation Equity Act, A Legacy for Users. Before this bill went to 
the full committee markup, I submitted the following project requests:
  For the City of Houston, I made the following requests: $1,000,000 to 
extend Munn Street from Demaree Lane to Gellhorn Drive; $1,000,000 to 
construct and rehabilitate pedestrian walkways along the Main Street 
corridor to improve transit-related accessibility; $1,000,000 to 
converge a hike and bike trail into Gellhorn Drive, providing an 
improved multi-modal transportation facility; $1,250,000 to pave East 
of Enwood Forest and west of I-45 and from Little York to West Gulf 
Bank.
  For the Greater Houston Development, Inc. CDC, we requested 
$4,000,000 for the installation of infrastructure including concrete 
streets, curbs, and gutters along the three major thoroughfares of E. 
Tidwell, Ley Road, and East Little York Road.
  For the Row House CDC, we requested $750,000 to construct bicycle and 
pedestrian trails in Houston's historic Third Ward.
  For the Old Spanish Trail and Almeda Corridors Redevelopment 
Authority, we requested $2,000,000 to construct landscaping and other 
pedestrian amenities in segments of the Old Spanish Trail and Griggs 
Road rights-of-way.
  For the Texas Department of Transportation, we requested $2,000,000 
to widen Hempstead Highway from 12th Street to Washington Avenue from 
four (4) lanes to six (6) lanes and for the improvement of the urban 
facility.
  All of these projects, if funded as they appear in the bill as 
drafted, would serve to make Houston's transportation network more 
efficient and comprehensive, and I thank the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure as well as the Subcommittee on 
Highways, Transit, and Pipelines for all of their hard work in getting 
these projects included.


                           airport pollution

  While I applaud the Committees' inclusion of projects that will help 
transportation systems, I must counter this discussion with a request 
that, in finalizing this bill, provisions be made to mitigate the 
problem of airport pollution.
  A large number of my constituents in Houston have, for some time, 
complained about planes flying dangerously low and about the unbearable 
noise levels at Bush Intercontinental Airport. A gentleman who lives 
near the airport reported that ``[he] cannot enjoy a day in [his] 
backyard, a barbecue, with all the noise, all the pollution going on.'' 
Attempts have been made to mitigate this impact such as temporarily 
diverting flights, reversing the FAA regulations that called for 
lowering flight altitudes, and constructing alternate runways. However, 
these efforts are ``band-aids'' for a larger problem. I ask that the 
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee work to achieve a solution to this problem.


                            racial profiling

  As we work to craft legislation that will facilitate the modes and 
roads for transportation, we cannot forget about the issue of racial 
profiling that runs part and parcel with interstate and intrastate 
transportation. As a Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I have 
been able to hear testimony and to read accounts of the horrible and 
disparate effects of racial profiling--largely in response to this 
country's growing task of securing the homeland. In addition, I have 
had the opportunity to contribute to the crafting of legislation to 
combat this problem.
  I support and have co-sponsored the End Racial Profiling Act of 2003 
(ERPA). Racial profiling occurs when law enforcement relies on race, 
ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individuals 
to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities, except 
when relying on a specific suspect description. This practice violates 
our Nation's basic constitutional commitment to equality before the 
law. Racial profiling is also contrary to effective law enforcement--
whether used as a tool in the war against drugs or the war against 
terrorism, profiling fuels the perception in minority communities that 
the criminal justice system is unfair and undermines the trust between 
the police and the communities they serve.

[[Page H1814]]

  To comply with the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the 
Transportation Security Agency under the Department of Homeland 
Security developed and implemented a passenger screening system called 
the ``Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System II'' (CAPPS II). 
The objective of this system is to ensure passenger and aviation 
security. Under this system, all travelers passing through a U.S. 
airport will be scored with a number and a color that ranks their 
perceived threat to the aircraft.
  Using easily falsified information such as a name, home address, home 
phone number and date of birth, this system would screen the airline 
passenger's name through credit databases and then run his information 
through secret government databases to make a judgment about his 
security risk. These secret databases would be compiled using 
intelligence and law enforcement records that could include personal 
information gleaned from commercial data such as purchase history and 
banking records.
  Indviduals singled out by this program would have no way of knowing 
why they have been targeted. They would not know if they are the 
victims of the widespread inaccuracies that riddle government and 
private databases. Nor would they know if they have been falsely 
accused of wrongdoing, or have been discriminated against because of 
their religion, race, ethnic origin, or political beliefs.
  Therefore, it is of paramount concern that, in passing legislation 
that aims to facilitate transportation and travel, we also end racial 
profiling and maintain respect for individual liberty. Language that 
begins to address this problem has been included in H.R. 3550.
  Similarly, I co-sponsored the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2004. The 
FBI has reported a dramatic increase in hate-motivated violence since 
the September 11th terrorist attacks. While the overall crime rate has 
grown by approximately two percent, the number of reported hate crimes 
has increased dramatically from 8,063 in 2000 to 9,730 in 2001 (a 20.7 
percent increase). Racial bias again represented the largest percentage 
of bias-motivated incidents (44.9 percent), followed by Ethnic/National 
Origin Bias (21.6 percent), Religious Bias (18.8 percent), Sexual 
Orientation Bias (14.3 percent), and Disability Bias (0.4 percent).


                             rail security

  As a Member of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, 
however, the issue of rail security must be addressed when it comes to 
transportation funding. Within the context of this legislation funding, 
I feel that priority should have been given to the improvement of our 
critical infrastructure, to enhance our emergency preparedness, and to 
aid our first responders who are responsible for the operation and 
maintenance of our local, State, and interstate railways. Especially in 
light of the recent subway explosions that took the lives of over 200, 
it is urgent that we take measures to increase our rail security 
whenever there is an opportunity--this bill and the upcoming 
Transportation Appropriations bill are such an opportunity.
  On March 11, 2004, an al Qaeda bombing of commuter trains in Madrid, 
Spain killed nearly 200 people and wounded more than 1,500 others. A 
minor fire incident in Washington, D.C.'s subway system recently gave 
us a glimpse of the potential for disruption to our public transit 
systems. Failure to invest in the security of passenger rail and public 
transit could leave these critical systems vulnerable to terrorist 
attack. Millions of Americans rely on mass transit systems on a daily 
basis. Making these systems as safe as they can be from terrorist 
attacks must be a high priority for the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  I have signed onto a letter from my Texas colleague and the Ranking 
Member Jim Turner to Secretary Tom Ridge expressing the need to 
increase our rail security.
  Between 1997 and 2000, more than 195 terrorist attacks occurred on 
surface transportation systems worldwide. There are over 140,000 miles 
of train routes in the U.S., 500 Amtrak stations, and 500 major urban 
transit operators. Nearly nine billion passenger trips are taken on 
U.S. mass transit systems every year. Since the attacks of September 
11, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation have warned transit and other railroad systems of 
possible terrorist strikes.
  In sum, Mr. Chairman, I support the inclusion of the projects which I 
cited that have been included in the bill that will improve Houston's 
transit system; however, in the course of finalizing its language in 
House and Senate conferences, I hope that my colleagues will look to 
make provisions for more rail security, given the urgent need.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill 
because this bill means jobs for many Americans currently unable to 
find employment. This bill is about bolstering our Nation's 
transportation infrastructure which has a direct impact on our economy. 
I believe that this is a good bill. I wish it was even more money 
because we can use the transportation infrastructure money.
  I am very sorry that the administration is threatening to veto this 
bill because it goes above the $256 billion limit they set. I do not 
know why they do not seem to get it. They do not get the fact that 
America's workforce and floundering economy would benefit tremendously 
from this legislation. It is unbelievable that at a time of high 
unemployment this administration is threatening to veto legislation 
that would actually create real jobs.
  I do not want to hear phony cries about budget restraint. The tax 
cuts for the rich rob us of our ability to have good programs. This is 
a great program. The administration says that anything above $256 
billion is too expensive. This is ludicrous because the transportation 
bill is self-funding. The former chair, Mr. Shuster, did a wonderful 
job in ensuring that revenues generated for the trust fund would only 
be used for transportation projects.
  I commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). I think this is a marvelous 
bill, and I wholly support it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of TEA LU. 
However, I am disappointed that it does not include language to close a 
dangerous loophole in a 30-year-old law that allows school districts to 
use 15-passenger vans to transport students to and from athletic trips 
and other school activities.
  I have introduced legislation, H.R. 1641, to remedy the problem. It 
would prohibit the purchase, rental or lease of 15-passenger vans for 
use to transport students. I understand that the ranking member is 
amenable to working with me and others in conference to ensure we put 
an end to this practice that puts schoolchildren's lives on the line 
every day.
  Is this the understanding of the gentleman from Minnesota?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Colorado has 
identified an issue that has been highlighted by the National 
Transportation Safety Board. I am in full sympathy with the gentleman, 
and we will work to accomplish that objective.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota for his remarks and look forward to working with him.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding 
me this time.
  I rise in support of H.R. 3550, a bill that is bipartisanly crafted 
by both the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member; and they have made the 
best out of what is a bad situation. The fact that the administration 
is threatening to veto this legislation at the level of $270 billion 
shows the irrational negotiating posture of the opponents of 
infrastructure improvement and investment.
  I support the $375 billion transportation infrastructure bill. And 
where does that number come from? It comes from the level that the U.S. 
Department of Transportation says is necessary to improve the mobility 
in our country. Mr. Chairman, if we do not improve the mobility of our 
country, just in Houston we lose $2.1 billion every year in 
productivity in fuel and congestion, and it is getting worse. And these 
are not my figures. These are figures from the Texas Transportation 
Institute's 2003 Urban Mobility study. This highway bill is not pork 
barrel politics. It makes investment in mobility that the public 
desperately

[[Page H1815]]

wants and needs. Our gasoline user fees are for our public highways by 
tapping revenue from those who benefit from them, motorists and 
truckers.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3550, a bill where our 
bipartisan Transportation Committee leadership, Chairman Young and 
Ranking Member Oberstar have made the best out of a bad situation.
  The fact that the administration is threatening to veto this 
legislation, at the level of $275 billion, shows the irrational 
negotiating posture of the opponents of infrastructure investment.
  I support a $375 billion transportation infrastructure bill. Where 
does that number come from? That is the level that the U.S. Department 
of Transportation says is necessary to improve mobility in the country.
  Frankly, I support indexing the gasoline user fee to inflation, a 
method that is far simpler than having to stop every few miles and dig 
around for change in the car seat to pay a toll. Under this bill, tolls 
will too often be the only option available to make infrastructure 
improvements.
  The funding level the administration supports barely allows us to 
tread water, while China, India, Japan, Europe, and other competitors 
are investing heavily in infrastructure to strengthen their economies.
  It is frustrating to be confined by inadequate transportation funding 
during tough economic times because infrastructure investment brings 
major employment and development benefits.
  Each billion spent on infrastructure creates 47,500 American jobs. At 
least 3.5 million jobs would be generated and sustained through 2009 
under the $375 billion level in the original H.R. 3550, including over 
200,000 jobs in Texas.
  Under this bill, we will get significantly less employment and 
economic activity than that.
  The administration and self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives in 
Congress do not seem to understand that residents in my community are 
idling away an average of 37 hours and 60 gallons of gas this year in 
congested traffic.
  Just in Houston, we lose $2.1 billion, every year, in productivity 
and fuel, and congestion has been getting worse. These figures are 
according to the Texas Transportation Institute's 2003 Urban Mobility 
Report.
  This highway bill is not pork barrel politics; it makes investments 
in mobility that public desperately want and need. Our gasoline user 
fee funds our public highways by tapping revenue from those who benefit 
from them--motorists and truckers.
  This bill has important projects for our area in Houston and across 
Texas, particularly U.S. 90, Clinton Drive, and a Harris County Freight 
Railroad Corridors and Urban Mobility Program.
  This railroad project in particular needs more study and involvement 
by all stakeholders before we get to implementation, but the problem of 
grade crossings and mobility does need to be addressed urgently.
  Some important policy provisions regarding transportation conformity 
are also included in this legislation, such as making the conformity 
process a four year cycle, voluntary limiting of conformity planning to 
10 years, and allowing a 12-month grace period in the event of a 
conformity lapse.
  I do not believe that these provisions solve all our problems, and I 
would hope that the cosponsors of our legislation in the conference 
will include further necessary improvements to the conformity process.
  Our area of Houston is struggling to meet Clean Air Act requirements 
by statutory deadlines, and I think we will have success.
  But to have our mobility crippled by losing transportation funding 
due to a confusing and contradictory process would be the worst public 
policy disaster in decades for our area.
  Looking ahead to a conference with the other body, I want to 
congratulate the bipartisan Transportation Committee for its best work 
in a bad situation.
  The closer we get our funding to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation recommended level of $375 billion, the better off our 
economy will be.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We have heard a wide range of thoughtful views, some of them 
expressed in very hurried fashion due to the time limitations. But if 
we had 24 hours of debate, there would not have been enough time to 
hear all the views of all Members because transportation really 
undergirds our entire economy.
  I leave one statistic with my colleagues. In 1987 the cost of 
logistics, moving people and goods, consumed 16 percent of our gross 
domestic product of this country. Last year logistics consumed just 
under 10 percent of our gross domestic product. That is a gain of $600 
billion in our $10 trillion economy. That investment gain is due to the 
investments that we have made through this committee in cooperation 
with States and localities improving our infrastructure. That is the 
core of why we are on the floor today, to advance the Nation's economy, 
productivity, and competitiveness at home and abroad.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In closing, I would like to thank all the Members who have spoken in 
favor of this bill. There is no one who spoke against the bill. There 
will be approximately 11 more amendments offered. I believe this bill 
is properly structured.
  And I have to say this. I again want to stress one thing. I came to 
this House 31 years ago. I came to this House to work to achieve 
legislation, and I believe we can only do that by working together. It 
is something I believe very strongly in. And I know there are those who 
do not agree with me, who do not want to achieve, but to bicker; and I 
do not think this is what this House is all about.
  So I again congratulate the other side, the minority, at this time 
for their willingness to work with me and I to work with them to 
achieve a goal. And I think we have partially reached it in this 
legislation.
  Because of certain media reports about the 375, I have to remind 
those that might be listening to this or are watching that the 375 that 
I chose 2\1/2\ years ago with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) was not an artificial number. It was not a ``wanna'' number. 
This is a number that came from this administration just to maintain 
and improve a little bit. There was only one way we could have gotten 
there, and that was by, in fact, increasing user fees. And of course 
that has run into tremendous opposition from different people, 
everybody knows who. But I hope they understand what we are really 
trying to do in this legislation; and what we should have been doing 
with the 375 is the future of this Nation because at this period of 
time before elections, we hear a lot of people talking about Social 
Security, Medicare, education, border patrol, homeland security, 
prescription drugs; and they are all good and they are all needed. But 
there is only one way we can have the financial revenue to get those 
achievements done, and that is to have a good infrastructure system in 
place for the future. Without a good infrastructure system, we do not 
have the economic capability of doing those things everybody wants us 
to do.
  This is not a new idea. Eisenhower saw it and built the interstate 
system 50 years ago and made this the greatest Nation not just for 
security purposes, but to be able to move goods and products and people 
to and from and establish industries because of that infrastructure 
system put in place 50 years ago.
  Now we have competition internationally. We have nations that 
recognize this. We did not win the Cold War because of our military 
might. In fact, we did not even win the Second World War because of our 
military might. We won it because we could deliver troops, products, 
food, and people across this Nation to the manufacturing points. China, 
as said in my opening statement, now recognizes that. And we hear a lot 
of China, about outsourcing. We hear a lot about China and their 
economic growth; but they recognize why we were great, and I stress 
that word ``were,'' because they are going to build in 15 years the 
same amount of highways that it took us 60 years to build in the United 
States to tie their provinces together, like we tied our States 
together, so there would be no more warlords. They will have a united 
China with 4.5 billion people to be able to produce and compete with 
anyone in this world and probably beat them on all forms of products, 
especially when Russia is right next door with all the natural 
resources that they use to do that production.
  And the foresight, I believe, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) and I have had to see that challenge and try to rise to that 
occasion to make sure this Nation has the ability to compete 
internationally, that is what this bill is about and what it should be 
as more.
  And that is why in this bill I have a reopener, and I have people 
objecting to that, because I believe our economy is coming back, but 
our needs to move people is also increasing at a dramatic

[[Page H1816]]

rate, and I want to have my grandkids and my great grandkids and my 
great, great grandkids to have the advantages and ability to compete 
globally because of the infrastructure system that we will put in 
place.
  I have told my adversaries that are against my 375 that I will be 
back. I will continue this fight because I believe in it so strongly 
for this Nation. I believe this House has a responsibility to leave a 
proper legacy behind for the future generations of this great Nation. I 
hope everybody that listens to the debate as far as the amendments go 
understands that we are going to listen to them. We will vote some 
down; we will accept them, but when it is all said and done that we 
step forth with this bill tomorrow I hope in the near hours to start 
the process to leave a legacy behind for this great Nation.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by my friend Mr. LoBiondo.
  What Mr. LoBiondo has put forward is a common sense measure that is 
long overdue. Our home state of New Jersey has recently enacted John's 
Law, which allows police agencies to impound the vehicles of drunken 
drivers.
  John's Law is named after Navy Ensign John Elliott. John was driving 
from Annapolis to his home in Atlantic County, New Jersey for his 
mother's birthday. En route, his car was struck by a drunken driver. 
Both Elliott and the other driver were killed.
  Three hours earlier, the other driver had been arrested and charged 
with driving under the influence of alcohol. He was released into the 
custody of a friend, who drove him back to his car and allowed him to 
get behind the wheel. This tragedy brought attention to a loophole in 
State law which has since been corrected.
  The LoBiondo amendment would not mandate any action by the states. 
Rather, we hope it will encourage them to impound vehicles of DWI 
drivers as another important tool in the arsenal of alcohol-impaired 
countermeasures.
  If someone is arrested for drunk driving, it is logical that they not 
be allowed to get right back behind the wheel of their car, endangering 
other drivers. Police and public safety groups in New Jersey have 
praised this policy and I hope that other states will do the right 
thing by enacting similar laws that will save lives.
  On a personal level, I want to recognize the efforts of Bill Elliott, 
John's father, who has not rested in his work to ensure that such a 
tragedy would never be repeated.
  Passage of the LoBiondo amendment will help Bill in his quest for 
better public policy. We can all hope for a day when what happened to 
the Elliott family will never happen to other families.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment and I thank my friend for 
bringing this laudable policy before the House.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3550, 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users . . . and I commend 
Chairman Don Young and Ranking Member Oberstar for their leadership on 
a difficult bill before the House. I also thank Chairman Petri and 
Ranking Member Lipinski of the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit, and 
Pipelines for their hard work on this legislation the last couple of 
years.
  Despite the funding level limitations placed on the committee the 
committee has done an outstanding job in bringing a good bill to the 
floor that provides $275 billion for highways and transit. I was 
hopeful we would be moving the bill preferred by the Senate, with a 
higher investment in national transportation system. By improving our 
infrastructure in the United States, we grow our economy. This is the 
best sort of job-creation bill.
  With the Southwest international border shouldering a greater and 
greater load of NAFTA commercial traffic, there is a greater and more 
urgent need for an interstate highway corridor down to Southern border. 
The border corridor infrastructure will help our local communities 
through which so much of the commercial trade passes.
  Investing in these inter-modal improvements means investing in the 
future of efficient movement of people and goods in the 21st Century to 
remain competitive, reduce congestion, reduce pollution, and provide 
for the safety of everyone traveling along our roads and highways.
  Investments to improve the security of America's critical 
infrastructures, including passenger rail and public transit, will 
benefit not only our national security but also our economy and the 
safety and reliability of systems that Americans rely on every day.
  This bill provides important funding to the state of Texas and my 
district. While there are still issues to be resolved, in particular 
the donor-donee issue, I am confident that this will be addressed as we 
move this bill further along through the process and on to the 
conference.
  Transportation is literally the lifeblood of trade and commerce that 
winds its way through South Texas, creating and supporting a number of 
jobs. The funding the Committee included in the bill for our neck of 
the woods will help with a number of safety issues, as well as 
generally contributing to creating new commercial opportunities for our 
area.
  The Committee included several public transportation projects for our 
area. Utilizing public transportation helps move people around more 
economically, it reduces pollution, and it reduces traffic in the area 
. . . all of which will go a long way to provide congestion relief for 
area commuters and a new level of safety for South Texans.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following two letters 
for the Record.

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                   Washington, DC, March 26, 2004.
     Hon. Don Young, Chairman,
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Young: I am writing with regard to H.R. 3550, 
     the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, which was 
     ordered reported by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure on March 24, 2004. As you know, the Energy and 
     Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over matters involving 
     air quality planning and the air quality impact of 
     transportation projects, the Congestion Mitigation Air 
     Quality Program, provisions involving energy production, 
     supply and storage and other matters contained within H.R. 
     3550 as reported.
       I recognize your desire to bring this legislation before 
     the House in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, I will not 
     exercise my Committee's right to a referral. By agreeing to 
     waive its consideration of the bill, however, the Energy and 
     Commerce Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 
     3550. In addition, the Energy and Commerce Committee reserves 
     its right to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill 
     that are within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate 
     conference that may be convened on this legislation. I ask 
     for your commitment to support any request by the Energy and 
     Commerce Committee for conferees on H.R. 3550 or similar 
     legislation.
       I request that you include this letter as part of the 
     Committee's Report on H.R. 3550 and in the Record during 
     consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank 
     you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Joe Barton,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____
                                  
         U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on 
           Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                   Washington, DC, March 26, 2004.
     Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman,
     Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of March 26, 
     2004 regarding H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A 
     Legacy for Users. Your assistance in expediting consideration 
     of the bill is very much appreciated.
       I agree that there are certain provisions in the bill that 
     are of jurisdictional interest to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce and I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, 
     the Committee on Commerce is not waving its jurisdiction. Be 
     assured that I will support your request to be represented in 
     the conference on those provisions in the jurisdiction of the 
     Energy and Commerce Committee.
       As you have requested, I will include this exchange of 
     letters in the Committee report on the bill and in the Record 
     when the bill is on the Floor. Thank you for your cooperation 
     and your continued leadership and support in surface 
     transportation matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Don Young,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for my Drug 
Impaired Driving legislation, which is included in the H.R. 3550, the 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users.
  I know it would probably surprise most of my colleagues to learn that 
up to 20 percent of drivers involved in motor vehicle accidents were 
under the influence of illegal drugs, or that in 2002 almost 11 million 
people drove a car or truck while under the influence of drugs.
  Over the past decade, our Nation's aggressive response to the problem 
of drunk driving has greatly reduced the number of drunk drivers on the 
road. But the Nation's 16 million current users of illegal drugs have 
faced no similar effort as they continue to drive under the influence 
of drugs such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin.
  I believe a more effective public policy for detection and 
prosecution will not only improve traffic safety and create a 
deterrent, but would get those drivers who violate the law into 
treatment.
  The Drug Impaired Driving Research and Prevention Act, which I 
introduced with my colleagues Sander Levin, Jon Porter, Mark Souder, 
Jerry Costello, Steven

[[Page H1817]]

LaTourette, Jim Ramstad and David Hobson, will provide assistance and 
guidance to States as they begin to address drug impaired driving. The 
language calls on the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to craft a model 
State drug impaired driving law and helps ensure that drivers in need 
of drug treatment are identified and provided with the appropriate 
assistance. The legislation enhances the training of police officers 
and prosecutors to detect, enforce, and prosecute drug impaired driving 
laws and also funds research to develop field tests to be able to 
identify drug impaired drivers.
  This legislation will greatly improve traffic safety and reduce 
traffic fatalities as has been the case with drunk driving laws. It is 
time to deal with these undetected dangers on our roads and highways 
before more damage occurs and more lives are lost. I thank Chairman 
Young for including this important legislation in the Highway bill.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. The reauthorization of 
TEA-21 offers the opportunity to celebrate some of that landmark 
legislation's visionary projects.
  The Southeast Corridor--or T-REX as it is affectionately known in my 
home district of Denver, Colorado--is one of TEA-21's best projects. It 
is currently on time, on budget and already providing essential 
transportation services. Upon completion in 2006, T-REX will connect 
the region's two largest employment centers through an improved 
interstate highway system and additional light rail transit. These 
roadway and transit improvements will significantly enhance inter-
regional and intra-regional transportation of people and goods.
  T-REX is quite literally driving Colorado's economic engine.
  I would be remiss, however, if I did not express my disappointment 
with the funding levels of the bill before us. I concur with the State 
Departments of Transportation's assessment of our nation's 
infrastructure needs. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of this 
legislation as originally introduced by the estimable Chairman Don 
Young and Ranking Member Jim Oberstar.
  It is unfortunate and dismaying that the President has chosen to 
wield the club of a veto threat on what is essentially the only jobs 
creation legislation before this Congress. I deeply regret the missed 
opportunity that the $275 billion price tag represents. We will be 
unable to address the donor state issue, which affects the 
transportation dollars Colorado receives, among other important changes 
we should be examining.
  Having said that, I applaud the Committee on its excellent work. I 
appreciate their recognition of the gains embodied in TEA-21 and of the 
growing infrastructure needs our nation faces.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of H.R. 3550, the 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (TEA-LU).
  In my congressional district, the rural highways that served our 
Nation for decades can no longer sustain the increasing numbers of 
cars, semis, and other vehicles that use them every day. Many of these 
roads cannot meet the expanding needs of the communities and growing 
economies that they serve. U.S. Route 30, the prime east-west truck 
route in my district, continues to exemplify this problem.
  As the chief alternative to the Ohio Turnpike and Interstate 70, 
Route 30 has seen drastic increases in truck traffic over the years--
more than 63 percent in the last decade alone. This has led to a tragic 
number of fatal accidents on the narrow two-lane segments of this road. 
Obviously, the need for a four-lane upgrade has never been more 
crucial.
  Six years ago, as part of TEA-21, I was able to secure more than $11 
million for the purchase of right-of-ways for the Route 30 
modernization throughout my congressional district. Since then, I have 
been honored to join my constituents at a groundbreaking ceremony in 
Crestline and a ribbon-cutting ceremony near Beaverdam to mark further 
progress on this lifesaving project, for which they have been waiting 
for more than four decades. Construction work continues between Upper 
Sandusky and Mansfield, with completion of the various upgraded 
segments slated for later this year. I'm grateful that TEA-LU will 
provide an additional $10 million in direct funding for continued Route 
30 construction from State Route 235 in Hancock County to the west end 
of the Upper Sandusky bypass in Wyandot County, bringing much-needed 
relief to those who drive and live near this major highway.
  I'm also pleased that the bill provides $2.3 million to continue U.S. 
Route 68 bypass construction efforts in Urbana. In 1958, the State of 
Ohio launched this project to connect Interstate 70 to U.S. Route 33 
west of Columbus, purchasing significant parcels of land for the new 
road. Little progress has been made to date, though, hampering the 
ability of local officials to promote and develop the area west of the 
city. This bill will advance the second phase of the overall project by 
providing needed design and right-of-way funds.
  In accord with TEA-LU's expansion of rail/highway crossing safety 
programs, I am grateful to the Committee for including important rail 
grade separation projects in the reauthorization. In the city of Lima, 
the construction of new grade separations will alleviate the potential 
dangers that arise when stopped trains cut off an entire sector of the 
populace from emergency services. A similar project in Urbana will 
allow for the rehabilitation of the rail bridge over U.S. Route 36.
  Mr. Chairman, I applaud the stalwart leadership and commitment of 
Chairmen Don Young and Tom Petri in setting a course toward meeting our 
nation's growing transportation needs. I also salute the continuing 
hard work of Steve LaTourette and Bob Ney in securing the best possible 
rate of return for Ohio and other donor states to the Highway Trust 
Fund. As we move to conference, their efforts in support of highway 
funding equity and fixing the ethanol tax penalty will help our state 
to complete Route 30, Route 68, and many vital infrastructure projects 
that have been on the shelf for years due to lack of funding. I look 
forward to working with them and with our outstanding senators, Mike 
DeWine and George Voinovich, to ensure that our state and nation have 
the best and most modern transportation systems in the world.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose this bill. I do 
so for two reasons. I believe that the bill spends too much money, and 
it contains too much pork. Many highway projects are good uses of the 
public's money, but many are not. I think this bill has too many of the 
latter. We are never going to balance the budget if we do not rein in 
wasteful spending, and today is a good place to start.
  Second, I do not believe that the jurisdictional concerns of the 
Committee on the Judiciary have been fully addressed. Numerous 
provisions of the bill fall within our jurisdiction. We requested a 
sequential referral of the bill, which we received, but it did not 
provide sufficient time for a markup. I appreciate the many conflicting 
pressures that leadership faces, and I do not criticize them for that 
decision.
  We have also worked with the Transportation Committee to try to 
resolve our concerns, but we have not yet been successful in fully 
doing so. For example, only yesterday I have learned of a provision 
tucked away in the bill that I understand would extinguish a particular 
pending federal False Claims Act lawsuit brought by the Department of 
Justice. I am very concerned about the ramifications of this kind of 
legislation. I will certainly be seeking conferees as to that provision 
and seeking its removal from the bill.
  Among my other concerns is that the bill as currently drafted would 
give the Secretary of Transportation some independent litigating 
authority with respect to certain hazardous materials actions. It is 
the longstanding position of the both the Department of Justice and the 
Committee on the Judiciary that litigation authority for the federal 
government should remain unified in the Department of Justice. We 
cannot yield on that point. Chairman Young has partially resolved that 
problem in the manager's amendment, and I look forward to continuing to 
work with him to fully resolve that issue.
  I also appreciate his willingness to include language I requested to 
clarify that Congress has the right to alter, amend, or repeal certain 
interstate compacts that are authorized in the bill.
  I remain concerned about a new grant program included in the bill 
that deals with racial profiling. I am hopeful that we will be able to 
work together in conference to improve that provision.
  There is also new material in the manager's amendment that falls 
within our jurisdiction which we have not yet had time to thoroughly 
study, so we will be looking at those sections.
  Finally, I will request that Members of the Judiciary Committee be 
appointed as conferees on all sections of the bill that fall within our 
jurisdiction, and I will continue to work cooperatively as we go 
forward to work out these concerns.
  But, for the reasons I have stated, I must reluctantly oppose the 
bill at this point.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, first let me say thank you for a job well 
done to Chairman Young, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Petri, and Mr. Lipinski for 
their leadership on bringing this bill to the floor today.
  Without their leadership and persistence we would not have a bill to 
even consider today.
  Despite a threat of a veto and suggestions that we should have a 
scaled down bill that would not even provide enough funding to the 
states to do general operations and maintenance of their transportation 
systems and other suggestions that we should have a 2-year bill, we are 
here today to consider a good, six-year bill.
  While I would have preferred the original bipartisan bill that the 
committee supported at

[[Page H1818]]

the $375 billion funding level over 6 years, I support the bill before 
us today in hopes that we can make the bill even better in conference.
  The bill before us provides $275 billion over 6 years and maintains 
roughly an 80/20 split in hwy and transit funding.
  Also, I am pleased that we have a section in the bill for mega 
projects--projects that are very important to our nation's 
transportation system that otherwise could not be funded out of the 
normal state funding formula.
  Finally, it is important that we pass this bill out of the House and 
conference quickly. When we invest a billion dollars in our 
infrastructure we create 47,500 new jobs and $6.2 billion in economic 
activity. This bill will help our economy at a time when our economy 
needs it most--we must act now so that we can put people to work during 
this construction season.
  Mr. Chairman, I again salute and thank Chairman Young, Mr. Oberstar, 
Mr. Petri, and Mr. Lipinski for their leadership and hard work.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, vicarious liability laws in 3 states (NY, 
ME, CT and DC) impose unlimited liability on car and truck renting and 
leasing companies for injury and property damage solely because they 
own the vehicles. Eight other states have some limited form of 
vicarious liability. Vicarious liability is ``liability without fault'' 
in that these companies have no involvement in or ability to prevent 
the accident. They cost consumers an average of $100 million annually. 
Companies nationwide are affected, not just in the few vicarious 
states, because the laws apply based on where the accident occurs, not 
where the car or truck is owned or registered. As a result, a car 
registered and rented in a non-vicarious state that gets into an 
accident in a vicarious state is subject to that state's vicarious 
laws. Companies have no way to protect themselves against these laws.
  I propose adding to H.R. 3550 (TEA LU) a provision to eliminate 
vicarious liability nationwide. Under this provision, only a company 
that is at fault or negligent in an accident could be held liable for 
damages. T&I Chairman Young, Highways Subcommittee Chairman Petri, and 
Highways Subcommittee Ranking Member Lipinski all support this 
provision; Ranking Member Oberstar is non-committal at this point.
  The amendment eliminates liability under state law for an owner of a 
motor vehicle who is engaged in the business of renting and leasing 
motor vehicles provided there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing 
on the part of the motor vehicle owner; the owner must maintain the 
required state limits of financial responsibility for each vehicle in 
accordance to the state where the vehicle is registered; elimination of 
vicarious liability commences on the date of enactment; and defines 
``motor vehicle'' and ``owner.''
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong support of 
H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users.
  This Member would like to begin by thanking the distinguished 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the Chairman of the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee, and the distinguished gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their extraordinary efforts in bringing 
this bill to the Floor. This Member would also like to express sincere 
appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) 
and the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for their 
hard work on this important legislation, which is designed to enhance 
our nation's highways, bridges, and transit, while improving safety and 
creating jobs.
  Clearly, a higher level than the nation currently spends on our 
highways and bridges is justified. Due to the dramatic deterioration of 
our nation's transportation infrastructure and the substantial growth 
of our population with attendant travel, our country must make a 
significant investment in our roads, bridges, and transit systems.
  This Member believes that is important to recognize that 
transportation funding must be based on needs. It is clearly necessary 
to address the very real and pressing transportation requirements of 
this nation. Substandard roads contribute to increased congestion and 
greater danger for motorists. Better roads improve safety and 
efficiency.
  It is important for the new surface transportation bill to not only 
maintain our current infrastructure of highways and bridges, but to 
improve it. Last year, the Federal Highway Administration released its 
2002 version of the Conditions and Performance Report on the Status of 
the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit. According to this 
document, the previous Highway Bill--TEA 21--has had a positive effect 
on improving road conditions generally. The report also noted that 
states and local governments have also increased their investment in 
transportation projects. Despite these improvements, the performance 
report stated, ``There is significant room for increases in highway 
capital investment that would result in positive net benefits to the 
American people, in terms of reductions in travel time, vehicle 
operating costs, crashes, emissions, and highway agency costs.''

  Improving our transportation system is good for the economy and it 
benefits each American. In fact, accelerating the funding for 
transportation infrastructure is in itself one of the best economic 
stimulus actions.
  This Member would like to take this opportunity to mention several 
issues of importance to Nebraska and the First Congressional District.
  First, this Member is very pleased that TEA-LU authorizes funding to 
address the problem of railroad-highway crossings and the elimination 
of road hazards. This issue--which was the focus of the field hearing 
in Lincoln, Nebraska, last year--affects many states, but the problem 
is especially acute in Nebraska, which has 4,000 public and 2,700 
private rail grade crossings.
  Nebraska has the highest number of rail/highway grade crossings per 
mile in the U.S. and has the most heavily used rail corridor in the 
nation. Nebraska is taking action to ensure that the safety issues 
surrounding the rail crossings are addressed. However, the state 
clearly lacks the financial resources to finance the hugely expensive 
program to reduce the safety risk associated with the more important of 
these crossings.
  Nebraska is served by both the Union Pacific and the Burlington 
Northern Santa Fe railroads. Combined, these railroads account for 70 
to 140 trains per day using their two main lines across the whole west-
east distance of Nebraska. The railroads continue to play an important 
economic role in the state, but additional, dramatically increased 
efforts must be made to improve the rail crossing issue.
  According to Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns, a state rail study found 
that public crossings are blocked by moving trains over 2,300 hours a 
day and that even in a low population state like Nebraska, its drivers 
spend an estimated 6,350 hours a day waiting for trains to pass. This 
problem will not go away on its own. In fact, the average coal train 
length has also grown from 110 cars to 135 cars, while the number of 
trains has doubled in the past 20 years.

  Governor Johanns has further noted that the State of Nebraska 
currently receives about $4.7 million of Federal and $3.3 million of 
state rail safety funds per year. However, the needs are much greater. 
The state's total rail/highway safety funding needs are more than $420 
million which would cover just 85 possible rail/highway grade 
separations from a much larger total.
  This Member would also like to emphasize support for including in the 
final surface transportation bill the provisions from two bills he has 
introduced in the 108th Congress.
  This Member believes that it is important that the final version of 
the surface transportation legislation ensures that agricultural 
transporters would continue to be exempt from hours of service 
requirements when operating within a 100 mile radius of their point of 
origin during planting and harvesting season. This is a matter of great 
importance to the transporters of agricultural commodities and supplies 
as well as to consumers. Although the 1995 National Highway System 
Designation Act included my proposal which led to a rule creating the 
exemption, this relief has been threatened by proposed hours or 
services rule changes. This provision, based on a bill this Member 
introduced last year--H.R. 871--is needed to safeguard this necessary 
exemption and provide a clearer definition of ``agriculture 
commodities.'' The bill has been endorsed by the Agricultural Retailers 
Association and the Agricultural Transporters Conference of the 
American Trucking Associations.
  This Member also supports inclusion in the final version of the 
legislation a provision based on the ``Safer Roads Everywhere Act'' 
introduced by this Member last year. This proposal--H.R. 1226--is 
designed to enhance global traffic safety and would benefit Americans 
who are traveling or living abroad. The legislation also is designed to 
provide the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with 
the authority it needs to conduct activities to improve worldwide 
traffic safety. Furthermore, it would provide the Department of 
Transportation with opportunities to gain knowledge about international 
traffic safety practices and programs which could be incorporated in 
the U.S. The bill is supported by the Association for Safe 
International Road Travel, the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, 
and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. My staff has worked with 
NHTSA and the World Health Organization in developing the legislation.

  This Member is also supportive of a provision which is designed to 
improve public safety through improved enhanced emergency response and 
increased security of intermodal containers. This provision would also 
authorize a pilot project to demonstrate emergency communications 
systems that provide wideband, two-way information transfer 
capabilities.

[[Page H1819]]

  This Member is pleased that H.R. 3550 includes provisions approved by 
the Ways and Means Committee designed to address the ethanol issue as 
it affects the Highway Trust Fund. Importantly, the Ways and Means 
Committee increased the funding available for transportation while 
protecting ethanol by shifting the cost of the Federal ethanol subsidy 
from the Highway Trust Fund to the general fund. The Committee did this 
by creating an equivalent tax credit in place of the ethanol tax 
exclusion of 5.2 cents per gallon. In addition, the Committee transfers 
an existing 2.5 cents per gallon ethanol tax from the general fund to 
the Highway Trust Fund. These actions are important not only for 
transportation, but also for Nebraska's agricultural community.
  This Member is also very pleased that H.R. 3550 includes funding for 
several projects which would provide significant benefits to the 1st 
Congressional District, Nebraska, the region, and the nation.


                    Nebraska Highway 35--$13,000,000

  The intent of the Nebraska Highway 35 project is to develop the most 
efficient route from Norfolk to South Sioux City. Currently, this route 
is comprised of several short segments of highway winding its way to 
the northeast. This project has significant regional and national 
importance. The 68-mile project will provide a more direct regional 
connection and greatly facilitate travel, for example, between the Twin 
Cities of Minnesota and Denver as well as regional north-south traffic. 
It is also a project of great importance to the area's local 
communities.

  The new corridor will provide significant safety, congestion 
mitigation, and economic development benefits and reduce travel time. 
The Nebraska Department of Roads classified the Highway 35 project as a 
``planned expressway'' in 2001.


                   Lincoln South Beltway--$14,566,300

  The South Beltway is a vital component of Lincoln, Nebraska's long-
range transportation plans and will be an important solution to the 
highway traffic congestion in a wide swath of central Lincoln with the 
substantial truck traffic resulting from the newly completed State 
Highway 2 Expressway connection to Interstate I-29 in western Iowa.
  The South Beltway is a vital component of the City's long-range 
transportation plans and will be an important solution to the traffic 
congestion that is beginning to affect this growing community. This 
Member has been personally interested in advancing this project, which 
will be beneficial to the entire region. Funding is needed to build 
upon past congressional support for the South Beltway.


                 Antelope Valley (Lincoln)--$4,000,000

  The Antelope Valley project is a comprehensive plan to protect and 
enhance highways and flood control in downtown Lincoln that has emerged 
from a partnership between the City of Lincoln, the State of Nebraska, 
the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UN-L), the Lower Platte South 
Natural Resources District and the Army Corps of Engineers. The project 
involves transportation, flood control, and community 
revitalization, many portions of which must be developed concurrently 
for maximum efficiency. For Phase I of the transportation component of 
the Antelope Valley Project, funding is needed for a new north-south 
roadway and a new east-west roadway within the redevelopment corridor. 
Between $7-8 million in Federal highway funding has already been 
devoted to this large-scale project.


             Fremont Railroad Grade Separation--$1,807,300

  Funding is needed to create a grade separation structure across a 
railroad corridor in the western part of the City of Fremont. This 
location is at the top of the Nebraska Department of Roads' list of 
grade separation needs across the state. The project will create 
significant safety and economic benefits.


                     Louisville Bypass--$1,626,400

  This project, which has the support of the Louisville mayor and city 
council as well as the Cass County Commissioners, to implement a 
Nebraska Department of Roads study, would relieve severe truck/traffic 
problems on Nebraska Highway 66 in the community and thus provide 
significant safety and economic development benefits for the area. This 
state highway is becoming more frequently used as a short-cut between 
I-29 and I-80 and that trend will accelerate when the two new Missouri 
River bridges in Sarpy and Cass counties are put in place.


       U.S. 34 Iowa/Nebraska Missouri River Bridges--$12,000,000

  The distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) and the 
distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), whose districts are also 
part of the site for the two-bridge, bi-state project across the 
Missouri River in Cass and Sarpy counties for access to I-29 support 
its construction as does this Member. The total funding represents the 
separate but complementary requests of the distinguished gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry), the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), 
and this Member. This important project is urgently needed to replace 
two obsolete and deteriorating bridges crossing the Missouri River. The 
construction of these replacement bridges will result in increased 
safety and improved economic development in the area.

  The agreement leading to this request for funding was the result of 
intensive discussions and thus it continues to represent the consensus 
of city, county and state officials as well as the affected Members of 
Congress. We believe it is the best approach for Nebraska, Iowa and the 
entire region.


               Pflug Road & I-80 Interchange--$3,000,000

  A future interchange at Pflug Road would provide a major catalyst for 
the development of southern Sarpy County. The existing Pflug Road 
bridge over I-80 will be removed as a part of the I-80 widening project 
between Omaha and Lincoln. In order to accommodate the interchange, the 
new Pflug Road bridge will be constructed approximately \1/4\ mile to 
the south of the existing location. Currently, the nearest interchange 
south of Pflug Road is Nebraska Highway 66, which is about five miles 
southwest, while the closest interchange north of Pflug Road is 
Nebraska Highway 31, about two miles northeast. This Member is pleased 
to join the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) in 
supporting this project. The total funding represents the separate but 
complementary requests of the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Terry) and this Member.


                        Cordova Road--$1,500,000

  This project would involve paving 5.5 miles of road north of Cordova 
to I-80. Paving this road would provide an important long-missing 
transportation link in Seward County, Nebraska, (and for areas south of 
the county) which currently lacks the funds to complete the project. It 
would also provide economic development benefits in the area.


      Nebraska Statewide Rural Transit Needs Assessment--$300,000

  This project is needed to assess capital and operating financial 
needs of rural transportation in Nebraska.
  This Member would also like to express strong support for designating 
the University of Nebraska--Lincoln as a participant in the University 
Transportation Center (UTC) program. The UTC provisions in H.R. 3550 
currently provide for a competitive selection process among the 
universities. However, if this process is revised and universities are 
designated in the final version of the legislation, this Member 
strongly urges that the University of Nebraska--Lincoln be included.
  UN-L is uniquely qualified to be included in the UTC program. UN-L 
has already developed a strong area of expertise in the area of 
transportation safety research; therefore, this Member believes that it 
would be an excellent addition to the UTC program.
  In recent weeks it has come to this Member's attention that an 
important project--Antelope Valley in Lincoln--may require clarifying 
language to help ensure that work may continue in a timely manner. This 
Member urges the final version of the legislation to include the 
following provision or something similar:

       (A) Antelope Valley Project.--The Secretary shall enter 
     into an agreement with the Corps of Engineers to allow for 
     the Federal flood control funds to be matched with Federal 
     surface transportation funds as the non-Federal match. The 
     Antelope Valley Project in Lincoln, NE, has successfully 
     demonstrated the cost savings that can be derived from a 
     coordinated effort between federal, state, and local agencies 
     to study, plan, and construct a major infrastructure project 
     that will mitigate flooding and transportation congestion 
     while revitalizing the heart of downtown.

  This Member strongly supports H.R. 3550 and urges his colleagues to 
vote for it.
  Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. Few 
responsibilities of the Federal government touch the lives of American 
families like funding for our Nation's highways. Whether you are a 
business owner moving product or a parent getting the kids to school 
before going to work in the morning, we all recognize the importance of 
well-designed and maintained roadways.
  And with almost 9 million Americans out of work and 47,500 jobs 
created for every billion dollars put toward federal highway and 
transit spending, we recognize that investing in our highways is an 
investment in our Nation's future, in our families and in our quality 
of life.
  While all of our States have transportation needs, by no means are 
they equal. At the same time I-95 truck traffic is expected to double 
in 10 to 15 years, the Northeast has one of the oldest highway and 
transit infrastructure systems, as well as some of the oldest and most 
heavily used bridges in the United States. Last week's fuel tanker 
crash on 1-95 in Bridgeport only highlighted these shortcomings, 
pointing to Connecticut's dire need for a viable alternative to our 
congested highways.
  I believe most members of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee would agree we should provide at least as much funding 
nationally as the other body has.

[[Page H1820]]

  I remain concerned about ongoing attempts to raise the minimum 
guarantee rate in this bill to 95 percent. Raising the minimum 
guarantee not only destroys the concept of needs-based aid, it does so 
at a time when assistance is most urgently needed.
  Mr. Chairman, as this legislation moves to conference, it is critical 
that we remain committed to providing funding to the States that 
require improvements the most. That is how this body can serve the 
Nation best, and that is what this bill should aspire to.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to quote the words of 
President Dwight Eisenhower, the father of our, Highway Trust Fund, who 
rightly said ``A network of modern roads is as necessary to defense as 
it is to our national economy and personal safety.'' President 
Eisenhower's words ring as true now as they did then.
  Traditionally, the Transportation bill has been free from partisan 
differences. We have an old saying on the Transportation Committee, 
``There are no Republican bridges, no Democratic bridges, just 
America's bridges.''
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, this year, the bill has fallen victim to 
political differences--within the divided Republican Party. Even though 
we've had enough support to pass the bill since last year, the divided 
Republican Party has held up passage of this bill for months. The 
President opposes Congressional Republicans from both the House and the 
Senate. House Republicans are divided against each other. The President 
has even gone against his own Department of Transportation.
  House Republicans go along with the President on tax cuts, a Medicare 
bill with an uncertain price tag, and funding infrastructure in Iraq. 
And, then he publicly belittles their transportation spending efforts 
by calling the highway bill an ``entitlement.''
  The division within the Republican Party also extends to their 
traditional allies in the business community. The President opposes the 
bill because he claims it spends too much. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
says it might oppose the bill because it doesn't spend enough.
  I hope that when we get to conference with the Senate, we increase 
the level of funding--as the majority of Members from both parties 
want. When we get to conference we also need to maintain several key 
protections that are in this bill.
  To ensure that adequate funding is available across our National 
network, this bill guarantees each State a minimum rate of return 
equaling 90.5 percent of each dollar invested in the Highway Trust 
Fund. Each State is also guaranteed a minimum apportionment in funds.
  But now, some States want to turn back the clock to some sort of 
Articles of Confederation, and keep the gas tax money for themselves. 
Doing so would rip apart the very fabric that binds our Nation 
together: our surface transportation system.
  Many of those same States also want to alter the proposed scope of 
the minimum guarantee program, which will penalize States whose needs 
are regional, or even national, in scope. An error in the Fiscal Year 
2004 Appropriations is already costing my State $20 million in badly 
needed highway funds. Altering the proposed scope of the Minimum 
Guarantee program, now, would only worsen this situation.
  I supported H.R. 3550 months ago, with its equitable minimum 
guarantee program. I don't support making dramatic changes in the bill, 
now, after supporting the underlying bill for months.
  It is important to bear in mind what President Eisenhower understood: 
that our transportation system is an integrated, coordinated, national 
network. It seamlessly crosses State borders regardless of the 
differences within those States, as the business community clearly 
understands. To be truly national, it must address measurable needs 
nationwide--taking into account the greater difficulty some States have 
at roadbuilding, or the greater needs some States have for transit.
  Mr. Chairman, I come from West Virginia--one of the most difficult 
States for constructing highways. Transportation in--and through--my 
State is critical not just to West Virginians, but also to trucks, 
tourists, and commuters from other States.
  And, if you cut equitable funding for highways this time, what will 
prevent cuts next time to the mass transit funding that States such as 
Illinois, New Jersey and California depend upon?
  Just like other national programs where West Virginians' tax dollars 
go to help other States--such as the location of defense bases, or the 
Farm program--some contribute more than they get back.
  That is appropriate. You can't drive across Mickey Mouse roads when 
you're traveling crosscountry to see Mickey, himself.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3550, 
the Transportation Act--A Legacy for Users (TEA-LU). I am pleased that 
my good friends Chairman Don Young and Ranking Member Jim Oberstar of 
the House Transportation Committee have agreed to increase 
transportation funding for the Territories.
  Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo, Congresswoman Donna Christensen and 
I have worked on this issue for the past year and Congressman Nick 
Rahall, ranking member of the House Resources Committee, has supported 
our efforts.
  As a result of our work, the Territorial Highway Program (which 
includes American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and CNMI) will 
be increased from $33 million to $40 million for FY04, FY05 and FY06. 
For FY07, FY08 and FY09, funding will increase to $50 million. Despite 
the Transportation Act (now known as TEA-LU) being $100 billion less 
than what was originally proposed, the Territorial set aside will 
increase by 23.6 percent.
  Moreover, I have worked closely with Chairman Young and Ranking 
Member Oberstar to include $14 million for high priority projects in 
American Samoa. This funding is in addition to American Samoa's annual 
Federal highway funds and will be used for village road improvements, 
drainage mitigation, shoreline protection and upgrades and repairs of 
the Ta'u ferry terminal facility.
  In consultation with the Honorable Togiola Tulafono, Governor of 
American Samoa, I have asked the Committee to set aside $9.4 million 
for village road improvements in the Eastern, Western, Central and 
Manu'a districts of American Samoa.
  In further consultation with Senator Tuaolo Fruean and High Paramount 
Chief Mauga and members of the Pago Pago council of chiefs, we have 
also set aside $1 million for drainage mitigation for Pago Pago village 
roads.
  In consultation with Senator Tago Suilefaiga, Representative 
Fagasoaia Lealaitafea and Representative Mary Taufete'e and members of 
the Nuuli council of chiefs, we have set aside $1 million for shoreline 
protection and drainage mitigation for Nuuli village roads.
  In consultation with Senator Faamausili Pola and members of the Ta'u 
village council of chiefs, we have set aside $1.6 million to upgrade 
and repair the Ta'u harbor facility.
  Finally, in consultation with Senator Faiivae Galea'i, Senator 
Lualemaga Faoa and members of the Leone and Malaeloa councils of 
chiefs, we have set aside $1 million for drainage mitigation for 
Malaeloa-Leone village roads.
  Again, I thank my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, and I 
also thank the local leaders of American Samoa, including Governor 
Togiola, for working closely with me to make sure that American Samoa's 
needs are addressed in this historic and important initiative.
  I urge passage of this bill and I again commend Chairman Young and 
Ranking Member Oberstar for their leadership and support.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of Tuesday, March 30, 2004, all time for initial general debate 
has expired, and under that order, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Petri) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
3550) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety 
programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________