[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 45 (Friday, April 2, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H2066-H2076]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brown of South Carolina). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 593 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
further consideration of the bill, H.R. 3550.

                              {time}  0913


                     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 further 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. Nethercutt (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Thursday, April 1, 2004, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 
20 printed in part B of House Report 108-456 by the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) had been postponed.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is now in order to 
consider the amendment at the desk offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Petri

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Petri:
       Page 548, lines 6 and 7, strike ``Jefferson Davis 
     Transitway (Columbia Pike to Pentagon)'' and insert `Crystal 
     City Potomac Yards Transit''.
       Page 548, after line 7, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       (99) Northern Virginia--Columbia Pike Rapid Transit 
     Project.
       In the table contained in section 3038 of the bill, in item 
     number 25--
       (1) strike ``$240,000.00'' and insert ``$912,000.00'';
       (2) strike ``$247,500.00'' and insert ``$940,500.00''; and
       (3) strike ``$262,500.00'' and insert ``$997,500.00''.
       In the table contained in section 3038 of the bill, in item 
     number 26--
       (1) strike ``$240,000.00'' and insert ``$912,000.00'';
       (2) strike ``$247,500.00'' and insert ``$940,500.00''; and
       (3) strike ``$262,500.00'' and insert ``$997,500.00''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
today, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there is any objection to this 
technical amendment. It has been reviewed by people on both sides.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This side has looked over the amendment. We have no problem with it 
whatsoever. We are happy to accept it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  0915

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). It is now in order to 
consider amendment No. 22 printed in House Report 108-456.


          Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota

  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota:
       Title I, amend section 1209 to read as follows (and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 1209. REPEAL.

       Section 1012(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 149 note; 105 Stat. 1938) 
     is repealed.
       Title I, strike sections 1603 and 1604 and insert the 
     following (and conform the table of contents of the bill 
     accordingly):

     SEC. 1603. FAST FEES.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code, as amended by section 1208 of the bill, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 168. FAST fees

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and 
     implement an Interstate System FAST Lanes program under which 
     the Secretary, notwithstanding sections 129 and 301, shall 
     permit a State, or a public or private entity designated by a 
     State, to collect fees to finance the expansion of a highway, 
     for the purpose of reducing traffic congestion, by 
     constructing 1 or more additional lanes (including bridge, 
     support, and other structures necessary for that 
     construction) on the Interstate System.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to participate in the 
     program, a State shall submit to the Secretary for approval 
     an application that contains--
       ``(1) an identification of the additional lanes (including 
     any necessary bridge, support, and other structures) to be 
     constructed on the Interstate System under the program;
       ``(2) in the case of 1 or more additional lanes that affect 
     a metropolitan area, an assurance that the metropolitan 
     planning organization established under section 134 for the 
     area has been consulted during the planning process 
     concerning the placement and amount of fees on the additional 
     lanes; and
       ``(3) a facility management plan that includes--
       ``(A) a plan for implementing the imposition of fees on the 
     additional lanes;

[[Page H2067]]

       ``(B) a schedule and finance plan for construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of the additional lanes using 
     revenues from fees (and, as necessary to supplement those 
     revenues, revenues from other sources); and
       ``(C) a description of the public or private entities that 
     will be responsible for implementation and administration of 
     the program.
       ``(c) Requirements.--The Secretary shall approve the 
     application of a State for participation in the program after 
     the Secretary determines that, in addition to meeting the 
     requirements of subsection (b), the State has entered into an 
     agreement with the Secretary that provides that--
       ``(1) fees collected from motorists using a FAST lane shall 
     be collected only through the use of noncash electronic 
     technology;
       ``(2) all revenues from fees received from operation of 
     FAST lanes shall be used only for--
       ``(A) debt service relating to the investment in FAST 
     lanes;
       ``(B) reasonable return on investment of any private entity 
     financing the project, as determined by the State;
       ``(C) any costs necessary for the improvement, and proper 
     operation and maintenance (including reconstruction, 
     resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation), of FAST lanes 
     and existing lanes, if the improvement--
       ``(i) is necessary to integrate existing lanes with the 
     FAST lanes;
       ``(ii) is necessary for the construction of an interchange 
     (including an on- or off-ramp) from the FAST lane to connect 
     the FAST lane to--

       ``(I) an existing FAST lane;
       ``(II) the Interstate System; or
       ``(III) a highway; and

       ``(iii) is carried out before the date on which fees for 
     use of FAST lanes cease to be collected in accordance with 
     paragraph (6); or
       ``(D) the establishment by the State of a reserve account 
     to be used only for long-term maintenance and operation of 
     the FAST lanes;
       ``(3) fees may be collected only on and for the use of FAST 
     lanes, and may not be collected on or for the use of existing 
     lanes;
       ``(4) use of FAST lanes shall be voluntary;
       ``(5) revenues from fees received from operation of FAST 
     lanes may not be used for any other project (except for 
     establishment of a reserve account described in paragraph 
     (2)(D) or as otherwise provided in this section);
       ``(6) on completion of the project, and on completion of 
     the use of fees to satisfy the requirements for use of 
     revenue described in paragraph (2), no additional fees shall 
     be collected; and
       ``(7)(A) to ensure compliance with paragraphs (1) through 
     (5), annual audits shall be conducted for each year during 
     which fees are collected on FAST lanes; and
       ``(B) the results of each audit shall be submitted to the 
     Secretary.
       ``(d) Apportionment.--
       ``(1) In general.--Revenues collected from FAST lanes shall 
     not be taken into account in determining the apportionments 
     and allocations that any State or transportation district 
     within a State shall be entitled to receive under or in 
     accordance with this chapter.
       ``(2) No effect on state expenditure of funds.--Nothing in 
     this section affects the expenditure by any State of funds 
     apportioned under this chapter.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--
       (1) The analysis for subchapter I of chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 167, as added by section 1208 of the 
     bill, the following:

``168. FAST fees.''.

       (2) Section 301 of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after ``tunnels,'' the following: ``and except 
     as provided in section 168,''.

     SEC. 1604. TOLL FEASIBILITY.

       Section 106 of title 23, United States Code, as amended by 
     section 1605 of this bill, is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(j) Toll Feasibility.--The Secretary shall select and 
     conduct a study on a project under this title that is 
     intended to increase capacity, and that has an estimated 
     total cost of at least $50,000,000, to determine whether--
       ``(1) a toll facility for the project is feasible; and
       ``(2) privatizing the construction, operation, and 
     maintenance of the toll facility is financially advisable 
     (while retaining legal and administrative control of the 
     portion of the applicable Interstate route).''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 593, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The amendment today addresses the big issues surrounding this year's 
road bill: how to expand capacity, how to do so without increasing 
taxes or expanding the deficit, and how do we address our overreliance 
on the gas tax.
  The degree to which the FAST Act, introduced by myself and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), has attracted strong bipartisan 
support reflects the success in addressing these issues by expanding 
capacity by removing an outdated prohibition again fee-based lanes on 
the interstate but preserving the trust of the driving public, by doing 
so only if the fees are charged on new lanes so we have new tar or 
concrete, charged electronically so there are no toll booths, the fees 
go away when construction and maintenance costs are provided for, and 
use of the lanes are optional to drivers and optional for States to 
use.
  It has a broad base of support, and I do believe that this could add 
$50 billion in capacity to our roads over the road bill period.
  I appreciate the chairman's efforts to reflect FAST concepts in the 
bill and have been very open with him about my intent to offer this 
amendment, but my concerns are this in TEA LU: that it limits the 
ability to increase capacity by limiting its FAST-like sections to only 
three projects; it allows tolls to be charged on existing lanes; it 
allows tolls to be charged indefinitely; it allows funds raised under 
these toll programs to be diverted to other uses.
  Long term, FAST-style fee lanes can be major solutions to relieving 
congestion but only if we preserve the trust of the driving public. The 
types of provisions included in TEA LU could lead to the same distrust 
and resistance that has resulted in every State referendum on increases 
in gas tax being defeated. When used with FAST-style protections, it 
has been accepted by drivers, as witnessed by a recent Minneapolis Star 
Tribune poll that shows 69 percent in support of FAST-style provisions.
  I urge my colleagues to join those that are supporting us, because 
this is increasing capacity, like the Associated General Contractors, 
the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, and the American 
Association of State Highway Officials, those who are users like the 
American Trucking Association, Owner-Operator Individual Drivers, NFIB, 
Food Marketing Institute, and taxpayer groups like the National 
Taxpayers Union, Americans for Tax Reform, and Citizens for Sound 
Economy to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) 
is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague from Minnesota 
for advancing a concept of how we are going to increase capacity. We 
have deep concerns, I think all of us, that we are in an ultimate 
downward spiral in terms of the revenue from user fees that provide the 
resources we need for funding America's transportation future.
  While we have refused to index these fees for inflation, we find that 
there are increasing demands and stresses that are being placed. 
Ultimately, we are going to have more fuel-efficient vehicles, and that 
means that we are not going to reduce at all the wear and tear on our 
highways, we are not going to reduce the demands of congestion, but we 
will over time reduce revenues.
  Now, I appreciate what my colleague from Minnesota and my friend from 
the State of Washington are doing in terms of helping expand this 
window. This is an approach that we should explore. However, the 
approach that they bring to us today is unnecessarily narrow. It would 
restrict it exclusively to highway projects. That is why you have 
opposition from the Surface Transportation Policy Project. That is why, 
in January of this year, there was an extensive correspondence from 
APTA that was shared with our ranking members and the committee chair 
that deal with the problems inherent in this.
  It is inconceivable that we would not want to have a balanced 
approach to solving transportation issues. As we have seen in State 
after State, people want balance.
  In Phoenix, one the second highest per capita usage of automobiles in 
the country, they had problems with road-only initiatives. It was not 
until they came forward with a balanced transportation initiative that 
allowed use for transit as well as roads that it had the public 
support.

[[Page H2068]]

  The proposal here would preclude what is going on right now in San 
Diego, a perfect example of how we can use tolling. In San Diego, there 
are currently 22,000 daily fast track automobile customers generating 
$2 million a year to pay for the program's operating costs, and they 
provide $1 million in support of commuter bus service in the I-15 
corridor.
  Now, I am not here to say that we do not need to expand road 
capacity. In many cases, we do. I am working to do that with some of 
the bottlenecks between our States of Oregon and Washington. But to 
say, as this amendment does, that if you are going to move in the area 
of other alternatives dealing with tolling, that you cannot use proven, 
successful initiatives that would add transit, that would add bus rapid 
transit, it is unnecessarily narrow, restrictive. It is not the best 
solution.
  I tried to have this conversation with the gentleman and his staff, 
to have a comprehensive solution like we have under ISTEA, like we have 
under TEA LU, where communities are given the choice to design the best 
possible solution. I think we could move forward, but if we are going 
to have something that is narrow, restrictive and turning back to the 
past, which is actually going to reduce public support as well as 
reduce effectiveness, I do not think it is worthy of our support at 
this point. I very reluctantly oppose.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), my cosponsor in the FAST Act 
which had 73 co-sponsors and a perfect partner for bus rapid transit.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) for bringing this issue up.
  What we are trying to do is expand options to fund transportation 
solutions. As both gentlemen have pointed out, there are many 
limitations on that, and States throughout the country are struggling 
with their efforts to find the resources to fund the transportation 
solutions they want. This is one idea to basically make tolls an option 
for State projects so that they could receive Federal funds if they 
wanted to use those tolls to fund it and maintenance of that new 
construction. The amendment expands this to allow for whatever projects 
want to apply.
  It is my opinion that the bill itself is actually narrower. It only 
allows an isolated number of projects to have these toll roads. It is 
not my understanding that this amendment in any way changes the current 
structure on mass transit. I am not certain that we currently allow 
Federal funds to go for tolling to fund that. But this amendment, to my 
understanding, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) can 
perhaps correct me, does not speak to what the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer) just talked about. It does not further restrict funds 
for transit. If it did, I would not be supportive of it. It expands 
what is available for roads.
  Toll roads, by definition, are for roads. If there was some way to 
expand further to deal with mass transit, I would be in favor of it. It 
was my understanding that this amendment does not further restrict what 
the law already does. It targets one area and expands the 
opportunities, whereas the current bill only allows for an isolated 
number of projects to take advantage of this opportunity. As the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) pointed out, it is like three 
projects throughout the country that could get this, and obviously 
there are more than that.
  So this is an opportunity to expand access to transportation 
opportunities, and that is why I support the amendment. My State and 
just about every other State I can think of desperately needs more 
funds for transportation. This opens up an avenue, a way for them to 
get those funds and build new roads and opens it up in a way that the 
public is likely to be supportive of. It funds specifically the road 
that they would be paying tolls on until it is paid for and the 
maintenance and care of it.
  Getting public support for these issues has long been a challenge. We 
voted down the gas tax in the State of Washington on several occasions. 
This would be an opportunity to get people something that they want and 
expand transportation funds.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the 
amendment. It is offered by a very valued and hard-working member of 
our committee. We have been working with the members of the committee 
on both sides of the aisle on the FAST proposal. Elements of it are 
contained in the bill before us. But the amendment as drafted would be 
disruptive to a number of aspects of the legislation that is currently 
on the books.
  There is a three-State pilot program that would be repealed by the 
amendment, and there are also several new tolling proposals that are in 
this legislation that would be repealed by the proposal. We are not 
opposed to working with the Member and trying to perfect what is in the 
legislation as it goes forward, but as things stand at this point we 
oppose the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this 
amendment. I disagree with my good friend from Oregon. This does not 
restrict but expands the options to expand our highway and interstate 
system.
  We do not have to stray very far from the Capitol here to see the 
congestion that plagues our Nation's roads. Try to drive out of here on 
a Friday afternoon, which I will, and we will see rush hour traffic 
that will slow and almost stop the movement of automobiles out of this 
city.
  DOT reports that the average rush hour has increased 18 minutes 
between 1997 and 2000. Additionally, congestion costs our nation $65 
billion annually in lost productivity and wasted motor fuel. The idle 
time spent in traffic increases transportation costs for U.S. 
businesses and robs drivers of time they could spend at home with their 
families.
  We must find workable solutions. I believe we have one in this 
amendment. It is an innovative method of combating this problem. The 
amendment allows for voluntary collection of fees for construction of 
additional lanes on the interstate highway system. Specifically, the 
amendment will allow States to create high-speed toll lanes to be used 
by motorists willing to pay a toll. Under the FAST lanes provision, the 
fees are collected electronically; thus, no toll booths. There will be 
no back-up. The fees collected are then used to pay off the newly 
constructed lanes. When enough revenue is obtained, they pay off the 
cost of the expansion. The fees are eliminated.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a common-sense approach to dealing 
with our Nation's increasing congestion problems. The Kennedy amendment 
provides States with a voluntary means of raising revenues for 
expanding their highways as much as $50 billion over the 6-year life of 
this bill, and this approach will free up dollars for other essential 
transportation projects throughout our States.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a win-win for both States and 
drivers. So I urge passage of the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that, in regards to this amendment, 
we have received word from the United States Department of 
Transportation that they have very serious concerns about this 
amendment; and I think that we should take that into consideration when 
we are weighing supporting it or opposing it.
  I would also like to say at this time that in the existing 
legislation we have two different programs pertaining to tolling. One 
has to do with new toll ways; one has to do with rehabilitation.

                              {time}  0930

  A similar approach was taken 6 years ago to tolling where we had one 
program where three States could come into a program with tolling. We 
are far beyond that piece of legislation; and today, we still have no 
one that has involved themselves in the option of tolling underneath 
the old program.
  So I really believe that rather than disrupt our bill and disrupt 
several significant sections of our bill, we should stick with what we 
have. There is actually an opportunity for six different

[[Page H2069]]

States to participate in a tolling program for new tollways, for 
rehabilitation, and I think that that is the way to go.
  I can appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, but I really 
think it is too disruptive and there will be very few takers for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment 
offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  This amendment is about financial accountability, projects that are 
funded by our tolling. Tolling can be an effective method of financing 
critical road improvements, but it must be done fairly. Tolling should 
be reasonable. They should not be allowed to go on indefinitely as a 
tax on road users.
  This amendment allows tolls on only new, voluntary-use lanes, and 
ensures that revenues are dedicated specifically to new highway 
capacity. It will reduce construction times and cut congestion in high-
density areas.
  I believe in giving States and local governments the maximum 
flexibility in dealing with traffic problems. This amendment provides 
that flexibility without sticking motorists with a permanent toll or 
travel tax.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, 
and I wanted to follow up on what my colleagues have said.
  I agree with the sentiment of what my friend from Georgia said; but, 
in fact, the amendment that he was supporting does not provide that 
balance and that flexibility. That is why this amendment is opposed by 
the Surface Transportation Policy Project, by STPP, by ASSHTO, by APTA, 
because it does not provide maximum flexibility.
  If you have a congested corridor, like we have in the Portland 
metropolitan area, you need a balanced approach. We are exploring, and 
discussing, the potential use of tolling. I think tolling is something 
that should be studied; but if we approve the approach of the gentleman 
from Minnesota, it would not permit the use of the tolling for any 
transit-related alternative, buses or rail.
  It would not allow the use of these revenues to deal with 
reconstruction. In many of our areas, we have problems of congestion 
and mobility because there are some facilities that are falling apart; 
but under this amendment, the toll revenues would not be available for 
the reconstruction of projects, just new lanes.
  It is not just a case of providing new transit lanes. Every community 
that is dealing with congestion knows that you have to deal with how 
you get on and off the connections, the interchanges, the bridges, and 
this amendment would not permit that. It is just those lanes.
  In many cases, if you increase capacity and you do not have resources 
around it, I will tell my colleagues, as 10 years as a public works 
commissioner and having worked in over 100 communities around this 
country, that is a prescription for disaster.
  So I strongly suggest that the concept be refined so that it can have 
a balanced approach, and then it would be worthy of the support of this 
body.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  I appreciate the comments from my fellow colleagues from Illinois and 
Oregon and just want to clear up a couple of possible misconceptions.
  Our FAST Act does provide for those connections. It does provide for 
maintenance, and it is a perfect complement to some of the most 
efficient transit options that are out there in the form of bus rapid 
transit. If you use congestion pricing on a fast lane, which is 
provided for, you can make sure that everybody's going 50 miles an hour 
or above, make it a very attractive option for bus rapid transit. Bus 
rapid transit is allowed to use these lanes, paid for by the users, 
free. You can combine it with car pools.
  So this is not something that takes away any of the funding for 
transit that is currently available, can be meshed with bus rapid 
transit in a very complementary fashion; and when we talk about 
capacity, six States were mentioned by my friend from Illinois, but it 
is only six projects in six States.
  If we are concerned that this road bill does not provide enough 
capacity to end the congestion around the country that is keeping 
people stuck in their traffic too long and away from families and work, 
why are we not letting fully bloom the FAST Act which could be $50 
billion or more if we then try to nitpick it around the six projects in 
six different States.
  Furthermore, the tolling sections that have been put in prior bills 
and in this bill have so many caveats that they will likely never be 
allowed to be used. We need a new source of funding. This provides a 
new source of funding, allows projects like the Katy Freeway in Houston 
to get done quicker, therefore, cheaper, frees up resources from other 
projects where the FAST Act would not apply.
  If there is a market for the road, the road can be built there. It 
embraces public/private partnerships. It would encourage us to address 
the needs that are affecting our economic competitiveness, and this is 
ultimately about a user choice.
  Yes, this amendment would take away the ability to put fees on 
existing lanes. This is an amendment that does take away the ability to 
put tolls in existing lanes. We will lose the trust of the driving 
public if we do so, but it does provide a price-value relationship. You 
only do FAST if it is on new lanes; therefore, they are getting 
something in return for it. They are paid for.
  If you are stuck in traffic at 10 o'clock in the morning, you should 
have a choice. Use crosses demographic background. It benefits 
everyone.
  This is the pro-capacity vote. This is the pro-taxpayer vote. That is 
why it will be scored by the Americans for Tax Reform and the National 
Taxpayers Union.
  I encourage my fellow Members to stand up for drivers around the 
country and support the Kennedy-Smith amendment.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, I first of all want to say that the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the full committee, 
strongly opposes this amendment. I have a statement by him which I will 
insert into the Record when we get back into the House.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) mentioned that there are 
numerous lanes that can be funded on an existing road. According to the 
legislation and the way I read the legislation, it is only possible to 
toll new lanes. You cannot toll existing lanes and improve them, bring 
them up to a higher standard.
  Consequently, once again, I say we have to oppose this amendment 
because I think in the existing piece of legislation we have very good 
opportunities, carefully laid out, where if people wish to toll they 
can do so to build a new toll highway or they can do it to rehabilitate 
an existing highway.
  So I think that this is an amendment that we really have done a 
better job with in the bill than this amendment would take care of. 
Consequently, once again, I say we oppose this amendment, and we would 
like to have everyone in this body join us in opposition to it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I am in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Kennedy amendment proposes to allow States to charge a toll on 
ever Interstate Highway across the country. Under the Kennedy 
amendment, the word ``toll'' should be spelled ``T-A-X.'' That is 
because, under the Kennedy amendment, American drivers are taxed twice: 
first when they pay at the pump and again when they pay the toll on the 
highway.
  The Kennedy amendment proposes to eliminate three programs included 
in H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (TEA-
LU), that are dedicated to reducing congestion and testing the 
introduction of tolls on the Interstate: the Congestion Pricing Program 
and two tolling pilot programs.

[[Page H2070]]

  Instead of addressing congestion in a comprehensive, multifaceted 
way, this amendment takes the reckless, single-minded approach of 
authorizing the use of Federal funds to support adding toll lanes to 
existing Interstate highways. Essentially, it proposes a permanent, 
nationwide program of imposing tolls on new Interstate lanes.
  Mr. Chairman, the two pilot programs in TEA-LU take a measured, smart 
approach to tolling. First, TEA-LU authorizes an existing program for 
reconstructing and rehabilitating existing Interstates, and establishes 
a similar program to cover construction of new Interstate highways. 
Each pilot program is limited to three States, and each toll facility 
is to be chosen by the Secretary of Transportation. These steps will 
provide us with the opportunity to learn how effective Interstate 
tolling programs are at easing congestion and what we can do to improve 
their effectiveness.
  Importantly, the programs in TEA-LU provide important protections 
against inequity and ensure that States are able to maintain their 
local roads adjacent to toll facilities in a condition sufficient to 
meet the traffic demands.
  When an Interstate highway is tolled, inevitably some drivers will 
choose to use local, toll-free roads instead of paying the Interstate 
toll. When that happens, the local roads will likely see an increase in 
wear and tear and an increase in the number of accidents and injuries. 
TEA-LU would ensure that States can continue to maintain these local 
roads as they see fit. In contrast, the Kennedy amendment contains none 
of these important protections.
  For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23 printed in House 
Report 108-456.


                Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Isakson

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Isakson:
       In section 1101(a) of the bill, strike paragraphs (1) 
     through (3) and insert the following:
       (1) Interstate maintenance program.--For the Interstate 
     maintenance program under section 119 of title 23, United 
     States Code, $4,478,227,346 for fiscal year 2004, 
     $4,551,839,370 for fiscal year 2005, $4,644,155,590 for 
     fiscal year, 2006, $4,742,741,342 for fiscal year 2007, 
     $4,859,076,291 for fiscal year 2008, and $4,966,297,676 for 
     fiscal year 2009.
       (2) National highway system.--For the National Highway 
     System under section 103 of that title, $5,373,872,608 for 
     fiscal year 2004, $5,462,206,628 for fiscal year 2005, 
     $5,572,986,299 for fiscal year 2006, $5,691,289,610 for 
     fiscal year 2007, $5,830,891,142 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     $5,959,556,398 for fiscal year 2009.
       (3) Bridge program.--For the bridge program under section 
     144 of that title, $3,842,568,497 for fiscal year 2004, 
     $3,905,731,625 for fiscal year 2005, $3,984,944,542 for 
     fiscal year 2006, $4,069,536,089 for fiscal year 2007, 
     $4,169,358,435 for fiscal year 2008, and $4,261,359,876 for 
     fiscal year 2009.
       In section 1101(a) of the bill, strike paragraphs (5) and 
     (6) and insert the following:
       (5) Surface transportation program.--For the surface 
     transportation program under section 133 of that title, 
     $6,269,517,870 for fiscal year 2004, $6,372,574,913 for 
     fiscal year 2005, $6,501,817,007 for fiscal year 2006, 
     $6,639,837,878 for fiscal year 2007, $6,802,707,011 for 
     fiscal year 2008, and $6,952,816,137 for fiscal year 2009.
       (6) Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 
     program.--For the congestion mitigation and air quality 
     improvement program under section 149 of that title, 
     $1,522,597,463 for fiscal year 2004, $1,547,652,365 for 
     fiscal year 2005, $1,579,013,023 for fiscal year 2006, 
     $1,612,531,852 for fiscal year 2007, $1,652,086,163 for 
     fiscal year 2008, and $1,688,541,453 for fiscal year 2009.
       In section 1104(a) of the bill, insert ``and'' at the end 
     of paragraph (1).
       In section 1104(a) of the bill, strike paragraph (2).
       In section 1104(a)(3) of the bill, in the matter proposed 
     to be inserted, insert ``projects of national and regional 
     significance,'' after ``highway safety improvement,''.
       In section 1104(b) of the bill, insert ``and'' at the end 
     of paragraph (1).
       In section 1104(b) of the bill, strike paragraph (2).
       In section 1104(b)(3) of the bill, in the matter proposed 
     to be inserted, insert ``projects of national and regional 
     significance,'' after ``highway safety improvement,''.
       At the end of subtitle G of title I, add the following (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 1703. SPECIAL RULE.

       For purposes of calculating the minimum guarantee 
     allocation of a State for a fiscal year under section 105 of 
     title 23, United States Code, the Secretary shall not include 
     any amounts received by the State for the project numbered 
     911 in the table contained in section 1702 and $17,000,000 of 
     the amount received by the State for the project numbered 
     1061 in such table.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 593, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and a Member opposed each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia. (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the committee 
chairman, and the ranking member for their cooperation in allowing this 
amendment to come to the floor today.
  My colleagues are getting ready to hear a lot of numbers. They are 
getting ready to see a lot of charts; but in the end, facts are 
stubborn things.
  The current base bill, as presented, if passing the way it does, will 
reduce the minimum guarantee in the States from 90.5 percent to a scope 
of 84 percent. The amendment presented today by me and a bipartisan 
group ensures that the minimum guarantee will remain at 90.5 percent of 
93 percent, as it was allocated on scope under TEA 21. Those are the 
facts. That is what everybody needs to understand.
  Do not let any chart with any separate group of assumptions lead my 
colleagues astray. They cannot make 90.5 percent of 84 percent more 
than 90.5 percent of 93 percent.
  Secondly, some will say it is a donor/donee issue, and to an extent 
it is; but if the base bill passes as it is, it exacerbates the donor 
States. All the donor States are asking in this is to maintain where 
they were under the last highway reauthorization bill.
  I hope my colleagues keep those facts in mind. Facts are stubborn 
things. This is about equity to our States.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Who seeks time in opposition?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) 
is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment; 
but for right now, I reserve the balance of my time until we get 
organized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Isakson) and other colleagues in supporting this very important 
bipartisan amendment.
  Without our amendment, highway users in Georgia and other States 
would lose billions of dollars. Already, right now, highway users in 
Georgia and other States, like California and Texas and Florida, are 
contributing billions of dollars to other States to help with their 
transportation needs. For example, in the previous transportation bill, 
Georgia contributed $1 billion to highway improvements to other States, 
at a time when we have growing unmet needs for congestion relief and 
access improvements of our own.
  In my own district, for example, I represent five of the fastest 
growing counties in this country, with untold transportation needs. All 
of the interstate systems intersect in my district, and yet we gave $1 
billion in highway improvements to other States.
  We are not asking to change any of this. We do not mind helping other 
States. We just do not want to take a step backwards. We want to 
maintain the status quo, hold on to what we have, and this bipartisan 
amendment would do just that. It will prevent a loss of $500 million 
just for Georgia and similar large losses for other States.
  Our amendment simply prevents a 93 percent to 84 percent reduction in 
scope of number of programs that fall under the minimum guarantee, the 
provision in the reauthorization bill that guarantees that each State 
receives at least 90.5 cents for every dollar its motorists send to 
Congress through their gas and other taxes. Governors in California and 
Texas and

[[Page H2071]]

Florida are not wrong. We must not take a step backwards.
  I urge my colleagues to please pass this important bipartisan 
amendment.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Lipinski) for yielding me time.
  I have been here 10 years, Mr. Chairman, and I want to say that the 
other day in our Republican Conference, where this was discussed, the 
most eloquent talk on behalf of a State was given by the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Isakson) on behalf of the citizens of the State of 
Georgia, and Georgians should be proud of his representation as well as 
the other Members who are sponsoring this amendment.

                              {time}  0945

  Having said that, I think he is wrong, however. I am glad he brought 
up charts because I have three charts that have been given to me over 
the last couple of days. One chart prepared by the gentleman from 
Georgia's group shows that Ohio is getting $359 million more over the 
life of the bill, the 6-year bill; I have a chart that was prepared by 
the gentleman from Illinois that shows we are getting $225,000 more; 
and I have a chart prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation 
that shows that we are losing $128 million.
  Facts are stubborn things. Charts each make different assumptions in 
this particular debate. That is why the committee has always had the 
position that, look, the problem with this bill is we need more money. 
We need more money so we can fix the donor/donee State problem. We need 
more money so we can fix the distribution problem. But it cannot be 
fixed with this amendment. I would respectfully ask the sponsors who 
come from donor States, if the assumptions made under the DOT chart are 
right, Florida is losing $187 million and Georgia 28. If they happen to 
be right at the end of the day, then this is not going to be a good 
thing.
  I would hope that the Members that are sponsoring this amendment 
standing up so valiantly for their States would let us try and work 
this out in a conference with the other body so we do come to a fair 
resolution and continue the growth that we had from ISTEA to TEA 21 and 
make TEA LU a bill that everybody can be proud of.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. The difference 
in the charts are the assumptions. In the chart in question, we met 
with FHWA this morning. They assume the same basis in allocating the 
charts. Therefore, the numbers change. Numbers are moving all around 
but 90.5 percent of 93 percent still beats the basis in TEA LU.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Isakson 
amendment. It is going to benefit all States, donor States and donee 
states; but I am going to limit my remarks right now to the donor 
States. Who are the donor States? The 25 donor States are shown here in 
blue, the largest of which happen to be Florida, Texas, and California. 
If you are from any one of these 25 donor States, you would be smart to 
vote for the Isakson amendment.
  It would be absolutely crazy for you to vote ``no'' on this 
amendment. I will tell you why. If you vote for this amendment, your 
State will do just as good as it did under the old transportation bill. 
If you vote ``no'' on this amendment, your State, on average, will get 
10 cents on the dollar less. For example, Florida goes from 86 cents 
down to 76 cents.
  Some of you have said to me, I am going to make up the difference by 
getting one of these projects of national significance. Here is the 
flaw. The Transportation Committee does not even have a complete list 
of the projects of national significance. They do not know what they 
are. Miss Cleo does not know what they are. Nostradamus does not know 
what they are. You do not know what they are.
  You might get one. Well, I might win an Academy Award. I might win a 
gold medal. I might actually keep my New Year's resolution and lose 30 
pounds. It might happen. It probably will not happen. The one thing I 
know for sure is if you vote for Isakson, your State is going to get 
more.
  You came here to represent your people. You came here to fight for 
your State. Do the right thing and vote ``yes'' on Isakson.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman 
from Georgia, as well as my colleague from Florida, the gentleman who 
just spoke. But I think the key issue on this amendment is the 
uncertainty of it. They have an analysis by the Federal Highway 
Administration. We have seen an analysis by the Federal Highway 
Administration and it is unclear. The Federal Highway Administration 
says that this amendment is going to cut funding in this bill by $3.7 
billion, which means that many States would lose money. I think because 
of the uncertainty of it, as the gentleman from Ohio said, let us work 
in conference to fix this problem. There is not enough money in this 
bill. I think all of us are disappointed that we could not get more 
money into this bill to fix the donor/donee State problem. But, as I 
said, the uncertainty, the numbers that I show here, a State like 
California is going to lose $550 million; Illinois, $346 million; 
Texas, $275 million over the life of this bill.
  Again, I come back to the uncertainty of this. Let the committee get 
into conference, let us try to work out our problems, but I would urge 
a ``no'' vote on this bill today because of that uncertainty. We are 
going to pass this thing and who knows what happens.
  Let us work towards getting into conference, and I believe the 
chairman and the conferees will make the proper adjustments on this 
bill.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that we have a 
piece of legislation here that seems to divide our States and our 
Representatives from those States, but frankly this really is not a 
fair bill to many of our States.
  When we bring appropriations bills to the floor, we do our very best, 
and I think people on both sides would agree, we do our best to make 
sure that we play fair with everybody in this Chamber. I have looked at 
the original bill, I have looked at the proposed amendments, I have 
looked at the manager's amendment; and all I can see is that taxpayers 
and the highway users in my State of Florida are not being treated 
fairly.
  I understand that there are some very nice incentives in this bill 
for Florida and for other States that are supporting the gentleman from 
Georgia. My vote is not going to be bought off because there are some 
very nice projects in this bill for Florida. I am still going to vote 
for the amendment offered by Mr. Isakson. If we cannot pass Mr. 
Isakson's amendment, I will vote against the bill because it is not a 
fair piece of legislation for a large part of this country.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 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, some Members have argued that we should 
include portions of regional or national significance under minimum 
guarantee. These projects by definition are vital to the Nation as a 
whole and should not impact formula distribution to the States.
  Let me give you a classic example. Whether you are on the west coast 
in Oregon or the east coast in the Port of New York-New Jersey, we have 
a problem. It is called the congestion in the hub in Chicago. You have 
got to do something. I want to put a lot of money in Chicago to solve 
that problem. Does that mean because we are dealing with a problem of 
national significance we should penalize Illinois and have it taken 
from its allocation? Of course not. This is a Nation. We are dealing as 
a Nation. We are not just dealing in little individual States.
  When I look at this Isakson amendment, it is almost like a roll call 
of a who's-who of States. State after State

[[Page H2072]]

would lose under this. Alabama, Alaska, California, Connecticut, it 
goes on and on and on.
  Mr. Chairman, this does not make sense. We are a national legislative 
body, not a State legislative body. Let me tell the gentleman from 
Florida about fairness. I have the highest regard for him, but New 
Yorkers are not treated fair in so many different categories. I could 
make a persuasive argument. The gentleman treats us fair, I know it; 
but we send more than $20 billion to Washington than we get back. Do we 
complain? Of course we try to jimmy and work some things out to get a 
better distribution of funds, but the fact of the matter is we 
recognize we are part of a Federal system and we look at the Federal 
approach. This is one of the few programs that treats us well.
  Let me praise the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for the outstanding manner in which they 
have handled this. But when all is said and done, this amendment, while 
well-intended, does damage to the national system; and I urge its 
opposition.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Georgia (Mr. 
Isakson) for bringing this amendment. When Congress passed TEA 21, the 
folks in Georgia and the Nation breathed a sigh of relief. We all felt 
we were making progress toward receiving an equitable share of highway 
funding and the jobs that followed. The Congress at that time adopted a 
minimum guarantee of 90.5 percent of Federal fuel tax dollars. 
Unfortunately, this guarantee was applied to only about 93 percent of 
available funds, making our effective return somewhere between 84 and 
87 percent. Not good, but we could live with it.
  Unfortunately, it now appears that we are moving in the wrong 
direction. The current bill will drive the effective minimum rate down 
substantially because the rate of return is 90.5 percent, but it only 
applies to about 84 percent of highway dollars. Mr. Chairman, this is 
unacceptable. I represent one of the most neglected States and 
districts in the country. We must have a reasonable return on the taxes 
that we pay in motor fuel tax dollars.
  I commend Chairman Young for working with us to achieve fairness and 
equity. I am sure that he will in conference continue to support 
fairness; but with all due respect, we cannot regress. I urge that you 
all vote for transportation fairness and the Isakson amendment.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The committee has worked a long, long time on this bill. Everyone 
would like to have more money, but because of the administration, we do 
not have more money. This bill is a very fair bill to every single 
State in the Union. It is really beyond my comprehension that there 
allegedly are people in States that are going to support this amendment 
whose States would lose tremendous amounts of money. I hear that there 
are people in California going to do it. That State would lose over 
$282 million if they supported that amendment. I hear people from 
Florida talking about supporting this amendment. That State is going to 
lose $35 million if this amendment passes. My own State of Illinois, a 
donor State, would lose $140 million underneath this amendment passing. 
Iowa, $61 million; Kansas, $21 million; Louisiana, $31 million; Maine, 
$25 million; Maryland, $84 million; Massachusetts, $34 million; 
Minnesota, $36 million; Mississippi, $14 million; Missouri, $27 
million; Nebraska, $25 million; Nevada, $41 million. These are hundreds 
of millions of dollars.
  The list goes on and on: New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, 
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West 
Virginia, Wisconsin. All those States would be deprived of valuable 
transportation and infrastructure funds if this amendment passes. 
Conversely, the program we have set forth here is as fair as possible 
considering we wanted a bill at $375 billion and thanks to the White 
House we could only come in at $275 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
  Mr. CHOCOLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment simply about fairness. We can try 
to complicate this issue with all kinds of charts, all kinds of 
numbers, and all kinds of formulas; and we can all find a chart or a 
formula that is going to serve our particular opinion. But the bottom 
line is this: every State in the Nation sends money to the Federal gas 
tax trust fund and every State, for every dollar they send, they may 
get a little bit more or a little bit less back. But under TEA LU as it 
currently stands, every single State in this Union gets less of a 
minimum guarantee. As an example, the State of Indiana currently gets 
about 88 cents for every dollar we send in. Under TEA LU, we will get 
76 cents back. But this is not about Indiana going backwards. This is 
about every single State in the Union going backwards with their 
minimum guarantee. There is no chart that can dispute that. There is no 
formula that can dispute that.
  This amendment is simply about fairness, about no State going 
backwards and about staying where we are, so every State can get the 
minimum guarantee that they currently enjoy and not go backwards. That 
is why we need to pass this amendment, because it is about fairness for 
every single State in this Union.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. 
It is quite clear with the dueling charts that are going on, there are 
very few, if any, Members of the assembly here who will actually know 
the impact on their States if this amendment is passed in terms of 
dollars and cents. But there are things that are very clear: one is 
that this has the effect of pulling the rug out from underneath the 
broadest coalition we have ever had developing infrastructure needs in 
this country. That would be tragic if all of a sudden we are going to 
be pitting the truckers versus the Sierra Club versus the bikers and 
the providers of concrete and asphalt and the historic 
preservationists. That would be wrong and it would have long-term, 
serious negative consequences for people that want a comprehensive 
approach to infrastructure.
   I find no small amount of irony that for the people who are standing 
up in protest, the problem is it is self-inflicted. If we had before us 
the bill that the Senate passed overwhelmingly, that dedicates the 
trust fund balances, that does not rob money from transportation to 
deal with international corporate issues, we would have the resources 
available to put $3 billion for California, $2.5 billion for Texas, 
$1.6 billion for New York, $1.5 billion for the State of Florida and 
$1.1 billion for Georgia.

                              {time}  1000

  What we have done is place impossible demands on the committee 
leadership to parse this out in ways that are unrealistic. And 
approving this amendment is illusory. It is not going to make it any 
simpler. It is going to make it harder. They are not going to know what 
they end up with, and they are going to be fraying this coalition.
  But if the Members are really concerned about imbalance, look at 
metropolitan areas most of us serve, and look at how little they get 
back on the dollar. It is far less than the State donor-donee. It is 
more serious, and our constituents back home ought to hold us 
accountable for that.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, my dad used to tell me life is not fair, but we almost 
always get out of things what we put into them. Sadly, that is not true 
for the highway bill, but really it has never been. But in the last 
highway bill, Congress actually made States like my home State of 
Indiana get at least 90\1/2\ cents back on every dollar we paid at the 
pump in gasoline taxes. But

[[Page H2073]]

this highway bill that we will consider today actually reduces that 
amount by about 10 cents on the dollar, for every State in the Union, 
as my friend from Indiana just said.
  The Isakson amendment asks only this: Keep the 90\1/2\ cent minimum 
guarantee for every State in the union just the way it is. We are 
asking to keep the status quo. Let us keep things the way they are.
  Life is not fair, but the way we use taxpayer dollars in the highway 
bill should be.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Isakson 
amendment, which would include high-priority projects as well as 
projects of national regional Significance within the minimum guarantee 
program.
  Supporters of the amendment claim that by including these projects, 
which are really Member earmarks, in the minimum guarantee program, 
funding to States' core programs will be increased. The amendment, 
however, will actually hurt many States' core programs because Member 
projects are earmarked and thus not available for States to use on 
their existing capital plans. Under the existing legislation, 
California, for example, without the amendment will get its apportioned 
funds for use in its existing core programs plus the $1 billion it 
currently has in earmarks. Therefore, it makes no sense for 
Californians, for example, to vote for this amendment.
  The amendment is also dangerous because to include projects of 
national significance in the minimum guarantee is to negate the entire 
program of projects for national significance. This category was 
established to fund projects that have a national significance and 
impact and that require a significant amount of funding. Eligible 
projects must be at least $500 million or 75 percent of the State's 
entire annual highway apportionment. If a project this size were 
counted against a State's allocation, the State would have virtually no 
money for its regular core program or existing capital plan. As a 
practical matter, no State would seek funding under this program.
  The purpose of the program is to fund projects of national 
significance that normally would not get funded because of their multi-
State nature or their size. These projects may be necessary because of 
our national trade policy or to improve national security. It makes no 
sense to count these projects against a State's formula allocation.
  The reality, of course, is that this amendment is offered because its 
supporters are upset about the minimum guarantee, that it does not rise 
from 90.5 percent immediately. This amendment will do nothing to 
address that concern and will in fact punish many States in the 
process.
  I disagree with that position. I believe the minimum guarantee should 
stay where it is. But if they are upset that funds are allocated 90.5 
percent, why would they want to put more programs under this formula? 
Why not allow all States to receive funds in addition to those 
allocated by formula? Including projects of national significance in 
the minimum guarantee certainly does not help them as it has nothing to 
do with the donor/donee issue. Under this amendment, neither the 
country as a whole nor any State would be able to benefit from this 
program, and the whole initiative which is of national significance 
would be rendered useless. The money would go to waste.
  This amendment undercuts much of the progress made in the underlying 
TEA LU bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  There are a lot of figures that are running around this floor, but I 
can tell the Members that what comes to my mind is that figures do not 
lie, but liars can figure. I am not saying people are lying here, but I 
think this body is totally confused about what is going on.
  Only ask yourself this one question: Is getting back 93 percent or 
applying the formula to 93 percent worse than applying it to 84 
percent? Is 93 percent more than 84 percent? Under the Isakson 
amendment, every State would be guaranteed a higher level.
  In Florida, we plugged these figures in. Florida will send $12 
billion in Federal gas tax to Washington under this bill but receive 
back only $8.5 billion. That is not fair, and I can tell the Members 
right now, a lot of people who are listening to this debate are totally 
confused. But the fact is that the States of Florida, California, 
Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, 
Texas, and Missouri are taking a whipping under this bill, and it is 
not fair.
  All we are asking for is equity. We are not asking to get all our 
dollars back. We wish we could. We are not asking to get them all back. 
All we are saying is, do not hurt us more than we are already hurt 
under existing law.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
  (Mr. SIMMONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of discussion about 
this amendment and whether it is fair or unfair. I oppose the amendment 
because I believe the amendment is unfair to Connecticut.
  The issue is, what do we get back from the Federal Government? If we 
look at the aggregate number of dollars that Connecticut gets back from 
the Federal Government, for every dollar submitted it is 65 cents, 65 
cents. That is the second lowest return in the Nation. Florida gets a 
buck plus. Georgia gets a buck plus. So if we look at the aggregate 
dollars, there is a whole new picture here.
  Why does Connecticut get more transportation dollars than some of the 
other States? It is very simple. Because if we look at the interstate 
highway system, the roads converge on New England; and if we look at 
Connecticut, the New England roads converge on Connecticut. It is a 
tiny State with six interstates. We need those dollars to support those 
roads. They are bumper to bumper, not just every weekend or in the 
summer. They are bumper to bumper every day. And that is why we get 
more transportation dollars.
  The committee compromise is fair. It is a compromise. People do not 
like compromises. Nobody likes a compromise. But the committee 
compromise is fair. Vote against the Isakson amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit the following document for the Record.

                                                        CONEG,

                                   Washington, DC, March 30, 2004.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: As the House prepares to act on H.R. 
     3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (TEA-
     LU), the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) urges 
     the House to maintain its support for the proven needs-based 
     structure of highway and transit programs that have resulted 
     in improved conditions and safety of the nation's highways, 
     bridges and public transit systems.
       The Governors appreciate the work of the Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee to provide the House with a bill 
     that maintains the effective and proven program and funding 
     structure of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
     Century (TEA-21). In an environment of severe fiscal 
     constraints, the Committee faced difficult choices, and in 
     H.R. 3550, seeks to balance the many diverse interests and 
     demands placed upon the program and available funding. We 
     recognize that addressing all these interests will require 
     more robust funding for federal surface transportation 
     programs.
       As the House now takes up H.R. 3550, we urge you to:
       Hold firm against any additional changes in highway 
     formulas or transit funding that could adversely impact the 
     core highway programs and transit funding. Additional 
     reductions in core highway programs could undermine 
     flexibility and impede states' efforts to maintain and 
     improve their transportation infrastructure, address 
     congestion and respond to the particular needs of the 
     communities they serve. Equally important, a loss of core 
     highway program funds could hinder a state's ability to move 
     forward with plans and projects already underway in our 
     states, and lessens the immediate job creation and economic 
     development benefits of the pending transportation 
     investment. At the same time, we strongly urge you to keep 
     high-priority projects and projects of national and regional 
     significance out of the ``minimum guarantee'' calculation.
       Protect the transit program: We urge you to maintain the 
     Committee's actions to protect and increase public transit 
     funding and largely maintain the current transit program 
     structure, including the traditional 80/

[[Page H2074]]

     20 split of Highway Trust Fund revenues between the Highway 
     Account and the Mass Transit Account. We welcome the 
     increased investment you have placed in our nation's rural 
     transit systems, and urge you to continue to invest in the 
     grwoth of our nation's urban and most heavily used transit 
     systems. Continued growth to support the critical, existing 
     fixed-guideway modernization program (Rail-Mod) and the bus 
     and bus facilities programs, as well as support for the 
     rural, elderly and disabled transit programs are vital to 
     providing essential mobility for individuals in communities 
     large and small across the nation.
       Maintain the firewalls and funding guarantees for highways 
     and public transit. We appreciate the Committee's strong 
     commitment to preserving the firewalls and General Fund 
     guarantees for highways and public transit, and we urge the 
     House to continue this commitment. Over the years, these 
     mechanisms have proven successful in providing the funding 
     predictability that all states need to meet their 
     transportation needs. It is essential that both the firewalls 
     and the General Fund guarantees for transit be maintained.
       We stand ready to work with you to advance a surface 
     transportation program that addresses these important 
     programs and allows all the states to work together to 
     address the critical transportation needs of the nation.
           Sincerely,
     Mitt Romney,
       GONEG Chairman, Governor of Massachusetts.
     John Baldacci,
       CONEG Vice-Chairman, Governor of Maine.

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), a real leader on this 
amendment.
  (Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, under today's law, 
every State, every single State, is guaranteed 90.5 percent of 93 
percent of the transportation budget. And the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure who, by the way, has 
been wonderful to work with, has said that he would like to work to 
improve that number, that he believes that the donor States should be a 
little bit improved. But the problem is that the bill that is in front 
of us today does not improve it. It makes it worse. It is no longer 
like current law that every State will get 93 percent of the 
transportation budget. No. Every State goes down to 90 percent of 84 
percent of the entire budget.
  I am not the smartest guy in the world, but nobody can tell me that 
90 percent of 93 is worse than 90 percent of 84. Not even in Washington 
can we make those numbers make sense. So this is a reality. If we 
believe that the donor States are paying too much, we should not hurt 
them worse.
  Let us be very clear about what the amendment does. The amendment 
does not do what all of us want it to do, make it better for the donor 
States. All the amendment does is keep it to current law so that every 
single State has exactly the same formula that we are living under 
today. Is that good enough? I do not think so. But, please, what makes 
no sense is to hurt every single donor State to provide projects that 
we keep hearing about of national significance that are not in the 
bill. It is a theory. It is not real. Those projects are not in the 
bill. So we do not know what we are buying, but every single donor 
State knows what it is losing. That is not fair.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the last speaker was talking about the current law. 
Just a little history for the body. Up until the Senate managed to 
overrule the House 6 years ago and took the Members' high-priority 
projects and placed them inside the formula funding, the House of 
Representatives, and the Senate up until last time, has always kept the 
Members' projects outside of the bill.
  It was easy enough to accept that the last time around, because 
underneath the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) we raised the 
amount of money going into the Highway Trust Fund, the amount of money 
available for highways and transit, very significantly so those 
Members' projects could be included within the formula. Unfortunately, 
we are not in that kind of position today.
  Secondly, the gentleman mentioned the projects of national 
significance. I know it is very true that it is not a delineation of 
what is going to be in there, but there has been $6.6 billion set aside 
for these projects.
  We on the committee have talked to a number of people who have very 
significant projects they would like to put in there, but we decided 
not to make that decision until we get to conference so that in the 
event the Senate would like to add some additional money to the 
projects of national significance or if we can get the administration, 
along with the Senate, to increase the amount of money going into this 
bill, we will be able to address more needs of this Chamber.
  I have been in this body for 22 years. So often discussions such as 
this on the floor are simply discussions of people wanting to get more 
into the bill because they are unhappy with the bill. But in most cases 
the committee position has been sustained, and I certainly hope and I 
believe it will be sustained today because this bill is the best bill 
for the country.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for bringing forth this crucial amendment.
  We learned overnight that more than $1 billion was added in earmarks 
to this project. This bill is out of control, and unless we have the 
Isakson amendment, there is simply no semblance of equity to this bill.
  If this amendment fails, we have only one recourse and that is to ask 
the President, Mr. President, please veto this bill. Please veto this 
bill. This Congress is out of control, and it is in desperate needs of 
some adult supervision.
  With that, I ask for support for the Isakson amendment.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Putnam).
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia for yielding me time and for his leadership on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an important step toward restoring 
equity to this process. The growth in America, the demands on our 
infrastructure and the demands on our roads have moved to the South and 
Southwest, and this formula does not reflect that.
  There is $50 billion in new money in this bill for highways over the 
last one, and yet the growth States move backwards in funding. That is 
simple math that is indisputable and cannot be explained but can be 
corrected with the Isakson amendment.
  If the projects were so nationally significant, why will you not tell 
us where they are? If they are so nationally significant, why are they 
not in the bill?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman of the committee for his hard 
work on this bill. It is very difficult to allocate these funds. He has 
tried to allocate them as fairly as possible. The difficulty is the 
donor States such as my State want a guarantee that they will get a 
certain amount of money back, and that is precisely what this amendment 
does.
  The State of Michigan over the years has contributed $1.71 billion 
more to the Federal highway funds than it has received back. They are 
48th in the list of 50 States as to how much we get back from the 
Federal Government compared to the amount of money we send there. This 
is a very sore point in Michigan.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will guarantee a rate of return for my 
State, and that is extremely important for my State, to receive that 
guarantee.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Isakson 
amendment, which would seek to simply elevate the scope of the minimum 
guarantee from 84 percent in TEA LU up to 93 percent, the level in TEA 
21. Basically, for the State of Georgia this means instead of

[[Page H2075]]

getting 76 cents back on every dollar, the citizens of Georgia would 
get 84 cents back on every dollar. That is our money, and it is only 
fair.
  I strongly support the Isakson amendment.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), a distinguished member of the 
committee and a good friend on this issue.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to serve with some great 
people on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, led by 
the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). I want to take this opportunity 
to thank him, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and others 
who have worked on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very difficult issue, because this decides 
how we divide our transportation dollars that come to Washington.
  There are certain facts in this debate, and you just heard one of 
them. There is a substantial increase in the amount of highway money, 
in fact, some 25 percent increase in this bill. We have been asked to 
really leave the final decision of division of the funds up to the 
conference.
  I have great faith in the chairman, I have great faith in the ranking 
member, the Speaker, the majority leader and others who have expressed 
their commitment to resolve this fairness issue, and that is what it 
is, in conference. But this amendment goes to the core of the problem, 
and that is the distribution. Rather than to leave it to chance, this 
Isakson amendment does in fact guarantee a substantial and fair 
increase to every State.
  Now I know that we need projects of national significance, but I will 
tell you, I come from a State that has many projects of State and 
community significance, and they will be left out if we do not address 
this from a fairness standpoint and address it in the bill now, so 
every State, every State, benefits.
  Look at the calculations. I know figures have been floating out 
there, but every State will benefit by the Isakson amendment. When we 
go to conference, we will be in a better position to address this 
fairness issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the leadership has done their best to resolve 
this, I know they have committed to solve it in conference, but, again, 
the fact is in dollars and cents to each and every State, and 
particularly those States that have suffered, we need to resolve this 
and adopt this amendment. That will do the job.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for the consideration of Members.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly urge a no vote on the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Every State in the Union gets an increase in Federal dollars in this 
bill. The distribution of all these Federal dollars depends on highway 
traffic on Federal highways. When one State says they gave $12 billion 
through the Federal gasoline tax and excise tax, that is true, but all 
that money did not come from that particular State. That money comes 
from people that transit all over the Nation.
  The gentleman from Connecticut talked about several interstate 
highways intersecting in the small State of Connecticut, so their 
proportion needs to be dependent on the Federal highway traffic on 
Federal highways.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to yield 30 seconds to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I just wish to address the 
two concerns that have been raised by those who are critical of this 
amendment. Those issues are time and money.
  They raise the suggestion that all we need now is more time and more 
money. I simply remind them of the fact that this committee has had, 
quite honestly, literally months, over a year, to work on it. I would 
ask for a show of hands. Who would ever expect we would get a better 
bill out of committee on this? I do not think time will solve the 
issue.
  The other portion is money. Those on the other side also object, all 
we need is more money. I would remind them of the fact, if we could get 
more money, where will that money come from? All those people who are 
donor States please raise your hand, because it will be coming from us, 
the donor States.
  Time and money is not the solution.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The gentleman is 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) 
is a good man with a difficult job, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) is a good man with a difficult job, and there are 433 other 
Members of this House who are good men and women with a difficult job. 
But fair is fair, and facts are facts.
  The money that flows in that we are talking about spending today is a 
user fee based on the use of roads in each of the States. It is only 
right that States get back at least a semi-equitable portion of the use 
of their roads that generated the revenue that this Congress has 
dedicated.
  There are no losers in the base bill or in this bill in aggregate 
dollars, because there is more money being spent, but there are big 
losers in terms of States in this country who already are donor States 
and are being reduced to a lower percentage.
  I do not have the luxury of promising designated projects, and I do 
not know where ultimately they will or will not go, and I am not 
complaining about that. I am not a chairman, and I am not senior. But I 
will tell you one thing: The people of Georgia elected me, and they 
sent me here to represent them, and they should understand and expect a 
basic minimum guarantee that is at least the same as they have been 
used to.
  Fair is fair, and facts are facts. There are a lot of loose numbers 
floating around, because, very frankly, we do not know where all the 
numbers are. But there is one irrefutable fact: 90.5 percent of 93 
percent beats 90.5 percent of 84 percent, no matter whether you use new 
math, old math or trigonometry.
  This is about equity, this is about fairness, this is about 
representing the people who sent us to this Congress.
  I am grateful for the opportunities that have been afforded all these 
Members, from Indiana, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, Arizona, all over 
the country. This is not a provincial issue. This is a people's issue. 
This is about doing what is right.
  We have great leadership on our committee. They have done a good job. 
But this bill needs improvement. The legacy for users in America should 
not be an inequitable distribution of the money they sent to Washington 
because of the use of their roads.
  Fair is fair, and facts are facts. I urge a yes vote on the Isakson 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) 
has 4\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the full 
committee.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time and for his management on our side. It is splendid work.
  Again, I express my great appreciation and admiration for our 
chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. Chairman, we had a very thoughtful debate here, and it is maybe 
one of the better hours of this body. There has been no haranguing and 
no questioning of motives or of spirit, and that is good.
  But last night I received this Dear Colleague from the gentleman from 
Georgia, which does make rather a amazing claim, that the Isakson 
amendment would keep the TEA LU highway program at $207 billion and 
adjust the formulas, with a claim that if the adjustments are made, 
every State would get more money.
  Well, the gentleman from Alaska has produced a chart that shows that 
every State loses under that formulation.
  I will say it again: The claim is TEA LU has $207 billion for the 
highway program. The Isakson amendment has $207 billion of grants and 
claims that every State gets more money.

[[Page H2076]]

  Well, that is pretty slick math. I just heard a reference to 
trigonometry. I do not know if you go into algebraic formulations, but 
it does not work. Trying to make it work has resulted in an apples-to-
oranges claim.
  I have been at this highway transit issue for about 40 years, since I 
started up here as a staff person. My predecessor was one of the five 
coauthors of the Interstate Highway Program and the Highway Trust Fund.
  Not every State gets everything back that it puts into the Highway 
Trust Fund. The idea is that we are a mobile society. People travel 
from one coast to the other, from the North to the South, as the 
gentleman from Maryland just referenced a little bit ago, and the idea 
is we all help each other.
  The problem with the Dear Colleague and with the claim of benefiting 
everybody is that it does not credit the States with any portion of the 
$6.6 billion mega-project program, and that is not right. Mega-project 
funding will go to the States. We are not specifying which States, who 
will get it, how it goes out. That will be done under a distribution 
that will be made by a fair and equitable process to determine net 
regional and net national benefits from projects that unlock congestion 
knots in this country. So when you add the $6 billion, every State gets 
more.
  Now, who gets what? Under the highway funding of TEA LU, Florida gets 
$751,632,870 more. Georgia gets $450,800,700 more. Texas gets 
$1,728,467,545 more. Every State gets more under TEA LU. Every State 
would get vastly more if we had this bill at the $375 billion level 
which we introduced.

                              {time}  1030

  The issue is not percentages; do not tinker around with that. Look at 
the net national benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, our national motto, e pluribus 
unum, ``out of many, one,'' it is not e pluribus pluribus, ``out of 
many, many.'' We are a Nation, an inclusive Nation. Those dollars that 
Georgia and Florida claim make them donor States come from States all 
along the eastern seaboard and from the Midwest. That is what we are 
about, one Nation, benefiting everybody. Vote for TEA LU, vote down 
Isakson.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for 
the Isakson amendment because it attempts to maintain the status quo 
for all the donor States by including earmarks and Projects of National 
and Regional Significance in the SCOPE of programs covered in the 
Minimum Guarantee program.
  In TEA-21, 93 percent of the programs were included in the Minimum 
Guarantee, including the High Priority Projects. In TEA-LU, as written, 
the SCOPE is reduced to 84 percent of the programs. For Florida, that 
means $860 million in lost guaranteed funds over 6 years. This would be 
a huge step backwards.
   Mr. Chairman, it's simple math. H.R. 3550 keeps the equity guarantee 
at 90.5 percent, but reduces the coverage of the guarantee to a smaller 
piece of the total pie. This will cause Florida and other States to 
lose hundreds of millions of dollars.
  The Isakson amendment requires no additional funding. This amendment 
simply asks that we keep things the way they were in TEA-21. I urge my 
donor States colleagues to support this amendment, for the sake of 
their State.
   Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendments offered by my good friend Mr. Isakson to address the 
backwards slide in minimum guarantee that this transportation 
reauthorization bill would impose on a number of States--including my 
home State of Georgia.
   Simply put, previous transportation bills have asked the hard-
working folks in Northeast Georgia's 9th District to send more money to 
Washington . . . and see less money find its way back.
   But this bill (H.R. 3550, TEA-LU), asks those same hard-working 
folks to send even more money to Washington . . . and see even fewer of 
their tax dollars make their way back to Northeast Georgia to improve 
the roads and conduct essential transportation improvements . . . and 
that's just as wrong as the day is long.
   Consider the numbers. Under current law, every State is guaranteed a 
90.5 percent return on each dollar of gas taxes it submits to the 
Federal government. And when the 1998 TEA-21 language became the law of 
the land, 93 percent of programs were included in the minimum 
guarantee, including high priority projects and projects of national 
and regional significance that are important to Georgians and others 
from States who pay so much more than ever comes back.
   But under this bill, under TEA-LU, States' core funding programs 
would be decreased from a 90.5 percent share to only 84 percent of the 
programs. Don't forget, this includes ``High Priority Projects and 
Projects of Regional Significance.''
   For the average State, this reduction in scope will result in the 
loss of $300 million over the lifespan of the six-year legislation. In 
fact, the State of Georgia could stand to lose between $500 and $600 
million.
   Mr. Chairman, I have stood on this floor time and time again to 
preach the need for this Congress, and this Federal government, to 
exercise fiscal responsibility and live within our means--much like 
Georgians and all Americans do every single day. I also clearly 
recognize the need to meet this Nation's critical transportation 
infrastructure funding needs. Taking money from Peter to pay Paul, 
accomplishes neither objective . . . and in fact, only seriously 
jeopardizes the future infrastructure needs for millions of Americans.
   Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely imperative to include high priority 
projects as well as projects of regional and national significance in 
the Scope formula for H.R. 3550. Make no mistake, we can do better . . 
. but by at least returning to a 90.5 percent minimum guarantee on 93 
percent of the programs addressed in the Transportation Reauthorization 
Act, this Congress rights a major wrong contained in TEA-LU.
   I urge my colleagues to do just that by supporting the Isakson 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Shaw) having assumed the chair, Mr. Nethercutt, 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.

                          ____________________