Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I hope everybody that is standing around will listen for a few moments as a matter of courtesy, because I have to refer back to one of the former speakers from New Jersey who said we had plenty of time on this bill, and we should have done better. I can tell my colleagues, we have done everything we could possibly do, because we had to really write three different bills, which is very difficult to do, because the numbers kept changing and kept floating. But every time we had to change, the staffs on both sides, on this side and that side, majority and minority, had to go back and rewrite most of the legislation each time.

So at this time I would like to acknowledge not just the work of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), but those who really did the work: Levon Boyagian, Graham Hill, Jim Tyman, Joyce Rose, Mike Lamm, Sharon Barkeloo, Melissa Theriault, and Ryan Young. He is not my son, either; he is no relation.

Also, Debbie Gephardt, not the daughter of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), either; Patrick Mullane on the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Petri) staff. They were the real behind-the- organization workers.

Also my chief of staff, Lloyd Jones; Liz Megginson; Charlie Ziegler; Mark Zachares; and Fraser Verrusio, Debbie Callis and John Bressler.

I would also like to thank the minority staff. I can tell my colleagues with sincerity that the minority staff, because the majority staff would come to me and say, the minority staff is not working with us; and the minority would say the majority staff is not working with us but, in the long run, we all got together and solved, I think, a lot of very serious, contentious problems and philosophies and where this bill was headed.

I also want to thank David Heymsfeld, Ward McCarrager, Clyde Woodall, Ken House, Katherine Donnelly, and Art Chan. On the staff of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), Jason Tai.

There are many others, and would I like to thank all of the members of this committee that worked with me and have stood by me; and those that object to provisions in this bill, they have my assurance that I am going to try to make sure that we solve those problems in conference. I have been one that does not weaken very easily when it comes to working with the other body. And if we stand shoulder to shoulder, I think we can solve those problems that have been brought to the floor. We hope to do so. I am confident we can.

Again, I am extremely grateful for those who put all the time in, 4 o'clock in the morning, 5 o'clock in the morning, and back here, like today, at 9 o'clock in the morning. This is a large legislative package, and we could not have done it without the hard work and dedication of professional people, I want to stress that, professional people; and for that, I extend my sincerest thanks.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the chairman of the subcommittee, who has done an outstanding job traveling across this country explaining our bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, we are about to close this very long 2 days. We will have a series

of three votes: the Bradley amendment vote, the Kennedy amendment vote, the Isakson amendment vote, and motion to recommit, and then final passage. Again, I can suggest to most of the Members of this House that this has been a long, trying time, but one which I take great pride in.

Regardless of what my colleagues read in the two rag sheets in this body, and they are constantly reporting and trying to divide this House, to try to pit one against the other in different fashions, we have overcome that and I think have come out with a very good piece of bipartisan legislation.

Yes, there are some that do not agree with it, and I understand that. But overall, if we believe in the national transportation system, and I want to stress, the national transportation system, H.R. 3550, the $275 billion does not completely do the job, but it is the nearest thing we can do at this time.

I will say right up front, a motion to recommit is very attractive, but it should not be done because it does break the budget against the budget resolution that passed the House; and it does, in fact, send a message to the Senate, but it does not accomplish the goals that I am trying to achieve, and that is to pass legislation so we can make a step forward, a step forward to the progress that is necessary to get our country moving, to keep this country moving, to make sure our people and our products move.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure my colleagues from Hawaii that pertaining to section 1812, I continue to be willing to work with them to find an alternative resolution of the issues addressed in that section.

We worked on legislative language last fall that would have transferred the dry-dock back to the Federal Government and compensated TDX for its costs and that would have ended all lawsuits. I am still interested in this framework for a legislative solution to these debilitating lawsuits.

Once again, I remain committed to working out a mutually acceptable solution to this problem with my friends from Hawaii and others, in conference or elsewhere.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that the House does not have a better transportation bill before it today. As it is currently written, the bill has a number of genuine shortcomings which are inequitable to my home state of Michigan and a large number of other donor states. Let me make it clear that these shortcomings will have to be addressed.

I also want to underscore that this transportation reauthorization is seriously behind schedule. Renewal of the highway bill was supposed to be completed last year. The states need Congress to complete our work and pass a long-term transportation bill in order to plan and implement their road and transit projects. The inability of the House to effectively deal with this legislation is negatively affecting the economy and jobs.

The House is in this unenviable position because the Republican Leadership and the White House cannot agree on the size and shape of the highway bill. The White House has indicated the President may well veto the bill that the Majority has brought to the Floor today. The President's ``my way or the highway'' approach to this bill is the single largest obstacle to providing equity to donor states in this legislation.

But we simply cannot keep putting this off and passing short-term extensions. We have got to break the impasse. Our country's roads and transit are too important to maintain the status quo. It is time to approve a multi-year reauthorization, move it to conference with the Senate, and have all parties sit down and work through the difficult issues that need to be addressed.

Primary among those issues is the need to address donor state equity. By maintaining the current 90.5 percent minimum guaranteed return on Federal highway dollars, this bill does nothing to improve the status of donor states like Michigan. I worked with other concerned Members in each of the past few highway funding reauthorization bills to increase Michigan's rate of return. Along with so many of my colleagues, I have cosponsored legislation in this session of Congress to increase this return once more by requiring a minimum return of 95 percent. The House Leadership has agreed to address this concern when this bill goes to conference.

The bill before the House today simply does not provide an adequate level of funding to meet the needs of our states' transportation infrastructure. The Senate has approved legislation providing $318 billion over 6 years, while we are considering a $275 billion measure. I very much support the Senate-passed funding level, which would provide $1.65 billion more for Michigan. I hope that we can move closer to the Senate-passed funding level in conference.

I will vote for this legislation today to get the bill to conference so that these shortcomings can be negotiated and addressed. Let me be clear: My vote on the final version of this legislation will depend on how these matters are addressed by the conferees.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, we have spent 2 good days of very legitimate debate. I was hoping we could avoid some of the things being said now. Although it may sound clear and true, I can say we face reality. This bill came out of our committee unanimously with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) supporting it. We want to go forth. The 318 figure coming from the Senate side, very frankly, I do not think is true. What we have to do is try to find the real dollars, and we are going to attempt to do that in conference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the other body 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Let us move forward. Let us try to legislate. Let us do our job.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to join with the chairman in complimenting the staff on both sides and expressing deep gratitude. As a former staff member myself, I am well sensitive to the long hours that staff put in.

On our side, Davis Heymsfeld, Ward McCarrager, Kathie Donnelly, Clyde Woodle, Ken House, Art Chan, John Upchurch, Eric Van Scandle, and Jason Tai, all have worked those long hours the chairman talked about. While we were recharging our batteries, they were running theirs sometimes on practically empty. But we also must express our appreciation to the legislative counsels from the House Legislative Counsel's Office who have provided such skilled draftsmanship for both sides, to David Mendelsohn, Curt Haensel, and Rosemary Gallagher.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, we will soon be voting on one amendment held over from last night. I want to remind Members that that is a heavy-trucks amendment. The position of our committee is no on heavy trucks. Vote ``no'' on the Bradley amendment. Vote ``no'' on this misguided Kennedy amendment dealing with tolls on existing highways, expanding that authority, and vote ``no'' on the Isakson amendment.

Let me restate, under TEA LU, every State gains. Look at your revenues, not at some arcane formula, a percentage of this and a percentage of that, and some percentage that is missing, like missing matter from the universe. There is no missing money; it is all there. It all goes to the States, and all States grow in their revenues under this bill.

Let me just point out, however, that under the introduced bill of last year, which the gentleman from Alaska and I and all, virtually all of the other, all but one other member of the committee supported, we have vastly increased funding. That is the direction we need to go. That is where we ought to be making the investment. That bill will put 475,000 jobs on the work sites of America by Labor Day. We would have $80 billion of additional economic activity in the workplace by Labor Day. We would have an economy rising instead of one that is stagnating. But we are not there.

We have done a fair job with this legislation, taking every State from the level of 90.5 percent return of their contribution of the trust fund to 95 percent over the 6 years of this bill. That was the goal. That is where we started. Everybody wanted to do that. We checked with Members on both sides of the aisle. That is what we do with this bill.

Let us not get bogged down into ``I get a little more percentage of this and my State gets a little more percentage of that.'' Remember, we are one Nation, one highway system, one sense of mobility. Let us move America together ahead with TEA LU, not backwards with these destructive amendments.

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Chairman, it is vitally important that we continue our efforts to fund the Nation's highway and transit systems, and that we find new ways to invest in these systems. I think we are seeing a consensus within the transportation committee, and an impressive unity in our committee's fine leaders, on the need to increase the level of highway and transit investments.

These are extremely worthwhile investments. According to the Federal Highway Administration, each $1 billion of Federal funds invested in infrastructure creates approximately 47,500 jobs and $6.1 billion in economic activity.

Today, America finds itself in a struggling economy. Maine is suffering as badly as anyone, with unemployment in my hometown soaring. People are looking for answers. Well--here is an answer, loud and clear. We need new investment, we need new jobs, and we need the highway and transit program to reach new levels of funding.

Many transportation committee members, including myself, had supported a bill with even more robust funding, and we will be voting during today for a version of the bill with an additional $100 billion in funding over 6 years. The fact that this is not the version that will be on the floor is disappointing.

Despite wide-ranging support from construction, engineering, trade, and labor groups for its job-creating impact, this $375 billion version of the bill has been blocked by a veto threat from the administration. This leads me to ask--what is it about jobs and economic growth that they object to?

Still, while today's bill is less than we would want, it does represent the best we could do given the constraints, and it is a testament to bipartisan cooperation and commitment to moving our economy forward. Many would have preferred a bill with greater investment in transportation, because this country needs jobs, and transportation investment is the best way to do it. But given the choice of stalling the process or supporting a bill with lower investment levels, I suspect the most members will vote in favor of the bill today, because of all the good things it does achieve. It increases overall funding, creates vital new programs to improve walking and biking routes, fund projects of regional and national security, and increase border safety. It is good for the country, and it is great for Maine.

I am particularly pleased with some of the project funding that will be included in this bill for Maine. Among the most important is the ``Wood Composite Materials Demonstration Project'' that is aimed at the University of Maine and its Advanced Wood Composites Laboratory. This vital funding to demonstrate the durability and effectiveness of wood composite materials in multimodal transportation facilities promises to increase the efficiency and value of our transportation infrastructure and find valuable new uses for our natural resources.

I believe that we will all work together in the coming months to make the good start we are getting today into an even better final bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. Today, we have a historic opportunity to reinvest in our Nation's infrastructure and promote sound economic development policy.

Highways make traveling the distances of our great State of Texas feasible and affordable. These roads traverse our lands, connect people together, and allow them to travel quickly and efficiently. They facilitate the transfer of commerce and enable the delivery of goods across state lines, and the construction and maintenance of these roads are an important source of employment for Texas residents.

While highways perform valuable services, they are merely an afterthought for the average person. However without timely maintenance and construction, highways may become unsafe and overly congested. Current economic problems have delayed critical maintenance and expansion projects causing increased congestion, air pollution, and accidents. The U.S. Department of Transportation reports that $375 billion is needed for highway and transit improvements.

NAFTA has brought numerous new economic and trade benefits to South Texas and the Nation; however, this increased trade is straining our current transportation infrastructure and causing an increase in air pollution and chemical runoff. Funds for transportation projects are urgently needed to offset and improve the many longstanding transportation and infrastructure needs of San Antonio and South Texas. I firmly believe that South Texas should not have to bear the burden of increased international trade traffic alone. If we do not invest in the region now, the flow of international trade will be negatively impacted in the future.

Last April, I had the opportunity to speak before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and testified on the pressing transportation needs in South Texas. I would like to take a moment to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member and their staff for their leadership and understanding of the complexity of our Nation's transportation problems. As I mentioned a moment ago, South Texas has many outstanding needs that will impact the Nation if not addressed in the very near future.

I am pleased that the Committee included six projects for which I had submitted requests. The legislation authorizes $4 million for Mission Trails Packages 4 and 5, which would complete a project that is vital to the revitalization of the South Side of San Antonio. The Mission Trails project is a transportation enhancement project that upon completion will be approximately 12 miles of picturesque, tree lined hike and bike trails, improved well-lit roadways, and rest areas for people to enjoy.

An additional $4 million authorization level was included for the Anzalduas Bridge Connector Road in Hidalgo County and $3 million for the Hidalgo County Loop. These projects are integral towards improving our Nation's gateway to trade and alleviating congestion in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. I would like to thank Congressman Lloyd Doggett for his steadfast support and work on these projects.

A $6 million authorization level was also included for construction of KellyUSA's 36th Street Extension Road. I would like to thank Congressman Charlie Gonzalez for his role in supporting this project. The 36th Street Extension Road is a critical component of the KellyUSA base conversion plan which includes new gateways and an expanded road access system. As a former military base, Kelly was originally built as a closed access facility. The 36th Street Extension Road will provide a new southern access point and expand community and commercial truck access to the facility.

I am pleased that the bill contained a $4 million authorization level for planning, design and engineering along the I-35 corridor in central Texas. These funds will support an ongoing multi-modal transportation project to improve the Austin-San Antonio corridor.

Lastly, I would like to thank the Committee for including language to authorize $4.5 million for the Arkansas Avenue railroad grade separation project in Laredo to improve public safety and overall mobility by connecting north and south Laredo. The project will also alleviate congestion along major trade corridors and allow traffic to flow in the event of an emergency or evacuation.

I also strongly support critical funding for the VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority that was championed by Congressman Gonzalez. A $7 million authorization level was included for VIA to purchase new buses to replace the aging bus fleet and paratransit vans as well as upgrade their bus maintenance facility. VIA provides critical services to the greater San Antonio area and I thank them for all that they do.

As you know, funding for the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) expired in 2003. I fully supported the House Transportation Committee's original reauthorization bill, which authorized a $375 billion level, and I'm disappointed that the President's veto threat of this jobs bill ultimately reduced the amount to $275 billion. I hope that Americans understand that this means fewer jobs in an already stagnant job market. For every $1 billion invested in federal highway and transit spending, 47,500 jobs--over half of which are in the construction industry--are created or sustained. This is a jobs bill--it is about investment in our communities and our economy.

Mr. Chairman, while I believe we should continue to push for additional funds, we must also face the harsh economic reality that recent tax cuts and a skyrocketing deficit have left us with less money to invest in our infrastructure. This bill that we have before us today is a start, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 3550. Let's start reinvesting in our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, do we have opposition on the point of order? On the point of order, may I continue with my motion to recommit?

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman to reconsider his point of order on my offering of this amendment. My amendment increases the funds in the bill to the Senate-passed level of $318 billion, and I believe that the House should be allowed to vote on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) to offer this motion to recommit.

The amendment increases highway and transit investment by $37.8 billion, a level of funding equal to the Senate/House-passed TEA 21 reauthorization bill, includes the Senate-passed Highway Trust Fund financing mechanisms, which includes no tax increases, and fully offsets these investments by cracking down on abusive corporate tax shelters, such as those enjoyed by Enron, and prevents American corporations from avoiding paying U.S. taxes by moving to a foreign country, and by extending customs user fees.

The amendment is paid for by drawing down from the highway trust fund and eliminating subsidies such as ethanol. We should continue to promote the use of ethanol, but we should keep the highway trust fund for truly highway-related activities.

A recent national survey found that transportation construction contractors hire employees within 3 weeks of obtaining a contract. Employees begin receiving paychecks within 2 weeks of hiring. In addition, this infrastructure investment will increase business productivity by reducing the costs of producing goods in virtually every industrial sector of our economy, which results in increased demand for labor, capital and raw materials and generally leads to lower product prices and increased sales.

Mr. Speaker, this investment will help create jobs for almost 3 million Americans who have lost their jobs in the last 3 years and will specifically help the more than 1 million unemployed construction workers. The number of unemployed private sector construction workers in 2003 averaged 810,000. The unemployment rate for these workers averaged 9.3 percent. We can invest in a future that our children and grandchildren will benefit from rather than continue to create debt for the future for our children.

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

Point of Order

No.

Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

No, there are other changes and they have been cleared by the Parliamentarian.

One of the differences in this bill is that it changes the part where we would report back promptly changes in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a State by State chart of the total highway/transit investment increases and new jobs that would be created under this new motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, as a graduate from my hometown school, I traveled on an interstate called Interstate 40. It was about one-third finished. My grandchildren travel that today. With this bill, with this increase with this motion to recommit and the suggestion of increasing it to $318 billion, all of our children and grandchildren to come will have an infrastructure that will be the seed that is needed for economic growth and investment for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, while we are decompressing for a moment and in a congratulatory mode, I would add my congratulations as well, but I would have just one little footnote.

Before we are through today, there will be an opportunity for Members of this Chamber to make a vote towards the level that was crafted by our distinguished chairman and ranking member. We are not going to get the $375 billion yet; some day we will, but we will have a motion by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis) that will permit us to at least vote on the $318 billion that was approved by the other body. It has no new user fees or taxes on gas; it is fully paid for, and it includes money that Americans are already paying for transportation.

I sincerely hope that we will be able to have an ``aye'' vote for this motion to recommit to keep faith with the broadest coalition that we have seen supporting American transportation, allow not just an empty gesture, but a House standing up for the future of America's communities.

Mr. Speaker, we have extolled the leadership of our committee chair and ranking member and the subcommittee chair and ranking member. I think that is appropriate because they have taken a difficult task and have given us a good bill. But it falls far short of the needs that have been identified by our own Department of Transportation.

One of the reasons we have had the trauma about the donor-donee over the course of the last 2 weeks is simply because we are not right- sizing this bill. Every day we are losing the battle to congestion, pollution, and bridges that are crumbling faster than we can fix them. This motion will get us one-third of the way that was envisioned by our committee leadership. It is, in fact, paid for and it will provide extra money for States large like California, Texas and New York, small States; and more important than the money in this time of economic concern are the jobs.

We have seen the good work by the committee leadership and we have not really acknowledged the leadership of Speaker Hastert and Leader Pelosi who understand that the President is wrong to draw the line here for the first time in his administration to exercise fiscal responsibility, so to speak, at the needs of our infrastructure.

Now it is time for the leadership here. We on this floor have the opportunity to do our part as Members of Congress. We can vote for this motion to recommit. We can vote to make sure that the Federal Government is a better partner with our communities to make them more livable, to make our families safe, healthy and more economically secure.

I strongly urge support for the Davis motion.