To amend the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 concerning the applicability of hours of service requirements to drivers operating commercial motor vehicles transporting agricultural commodities and farm supplies.

Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong support of H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users.

This Member would like to begin by thanking the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their extraordinary efforts in bringing this bill to the Floor. This Member would also like to express sincere appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for their hard work on this important legislation, which is designed to enhance our nation's highways, bridges, and transit, while improving safety and creating jobs.

Clearly, a higher level than the nation currently spends on our highways and bridges is justified. Due to the dramatic deterioration of our nation's transportation infrastructure and the substantial growth of our population with attendant travel, our country must make a significant investment in our roads, bridges, and transit systems.

This Member believes that is important to recognize that transportation funding must be based on needs. It is clearly necessary to address the very real and pressing transportation requirements of this nation. Substandard roads contribute to increased congestion and greater danger for motorists. Better roads improve safety and efficiency.

It is important for the new surface transportation bill to not only maintain our current infrastructure of highways and bridges, but to improve it. Last year, the Federal Highway Administration released its 2002 version of the Conditions and Performance Report on the Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit. According to this document, the previous Highway Bill--TEA 21--has had a positive effect on improving road conditions generally. The report also noted that states and local governments have also increased their investment in transportation projects. Despite these improvements, the performance report stated, ``There is significant room for increases in highway capital investment that would result in positive net benefits to the American people, in terms of reductions in travel time, vehicle operating costs, crashes, emissions, and highway agency costs.''

Improving our transportation system is good for the economy and it benefits each American. In fact, accelerating the funding for transportation infrastructure is in itself one of the best economic stimulus actions.

This Member would like to take this opportunity to mention several issues of importance to Nebraska and the First Congressional District.

First, this Member is very pleased that TEA-LU authorizes funding to address the problem of railroad-highway crossings and the elimination of road hazards. This issue--which was the focus of the field hearing in Lincoln, Nebraska, last year--affects many states, but the problem is especially acute in Nebraska, which has 4,000 public and 2,700 private rail grade crossings.

Nebraska has the highest number of rail/highway grade crossings per mile in the U.S. and has the most heavily used rail corridor in the nation. Nebraska is taking action to ensure that the safety issues surrounding the rail crossings are addressed. However, the state clearly lacks the financial resources to finance the hugely expensive program to reduce the safety risk associated with the more important of these crossings.

Nebraska is served by both the Union Pacific and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroads. Combined, these railroads account for 70 to 140 trains per day using their two main lines across the whole west- east distance of Nebraska. The railroads continue to play an important economic role in the state, but additional, dramatically increased efforts must be made to improve the rail crossing issue.

According to Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns, a state rail study found that public crossings are blocked by moving trains over 2,300 hours a day and that even in a low population state like Nebraska, its drivers spend an estimated 6,350 hours a day waiting for trains to pass. This problem will not go away on its own. In fact, the average coal train length has also grown from 110 cars to 135 cars, while the number of trains has doubled in the past 20 years.

Governor Johanns has further noted that the State of Nebraska currently receives about $4.7 million of Federal and $3.3 million of state rail safety funds per year. However, the needs are much greater. The state's total rail/highway safety funding needs are more than $420 million which would cover just 85 possible rail/highway grade separations from a much larger total.

This Member would also like to emphasize support for including in the final surface transportation bill the provisions from two bills he has introduced in the 108th Congress.

This Member believes that it is important that the final version of the surface transportation legislation ensures that agricultural transporters would continue to be exempt from hours of service requirements when operating within a 100 mile radius of their point of origin during planting and harvesting season. This is a matter of great importance to the transporters of agricultural commodities and supplies as well as to consumers. Although the 1995 National Highway System Designation Act included my proposal which led to a rule creating the exemption, this relief has been threatened by proposed hours or services rule changes. This provision, based on a bill this Member introduced last year--H.R. 871--is needed to safeguard this necessary exemption and provide a clearer definition of ``agriculture commodities.'' The bill has been endorsed by the Agricultural Retailers Association and the Agricultural Transporters Conference of the American Trucking Associations.

This Member also supports inclusion in the final version of the legislation a provision based on the ``Safer Roads Everywhere Act'' introduced by this Member last year. This proposal--H.R. 1226--is designed to enhance global traffic safety and would benefit Americans who are traveling or living abroad. The legislation also is designed to provide the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with the authority it needs to conduct activities to improve worldwide traffic safety. Furthermore, it would provide the Department of Transportation with opportunities to gain knowledge about international traffic safety practices and programs which could be incorporated in the U.S. The bill is supported by the Association for Safe International Road Travel, the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. My staff has worked with NHTSA and the World Health Organization in developing the legislation.

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

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

This Member is also very pleased that H.R. 3550 includes funding for several projects which would provide significant benefits to the 1st Congressional District, Nebraska, the region, and the nation.

Nebraska Highway 35--$13,000,000

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

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

Lincoln South Beltway--$14,566,300

The South Beltway is a vital component of Lincoln, Nebraska's long- range transportation plans and will be an important solution to the highway traffic congestion in a wide swath of central Lincoln with the substantial truck traffic resulting from the newly completed State Highway 2 Expressway connection to Interstate I-29 in western Iowa.

The South Beltway is a vital component of the City's long-range transportation plans and will be an important solution to the traffic congestion that is beginning to affect this growing community. This Member has been personally interested in advancing this project, which will be beneficial to the entire region. Funding is needed to build upon past congressional support for the South Beltway.

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

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

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

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

Louisville Bypass--$1,626,400

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cordova Road--$1,500,000

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

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

This project is needed to assess capital and operating financial needs of rural transportation in Nebraska.

This Member would also like to express strong support for designating the University of Nebraska--Lincoln as a participant in the University Transportation Center (UTC) program. The UTC provisions in H.R. 3550 currently provide for a competitive selection process among the universities. However, if this process is revised and universities are designated in the final version of the legislation, this Member strongly urges that the University of Nebraska--Lincoln be included.

UN-L is uniquely qualified to be included in the UTC program. UN-L has already developed a strong area of expertise in the area of transportation safety research; therefore, this Member believes that it would be an excellent addition to the UTC program.

In recent weeks it has come to this Member's attention that an important project--Antelope Valley in Lincoln--may require clarifying language to help ensure that work may continue in a timely manner. This Member urges the final version of the legislation to include the following provision or something similar:

(A) Antelope Valley Project.--The Secretary shall enter

into an agreement with the Corps of Engineers to allow for

the Federal flood control funds to be matched with Federal

surface transportation funds as the non-Federal match. The

Antelope Valley Project in Lincoln, NE, has successfully

demonstrated the cost savings that can be derived from a

coordinated effort between federal, state, and local agencies

to study, plan, and construct a major infrastructure project

that will mitigate flooding and transportation congestion

while revitalizing the heart of downtown.

This Member strongly supports H.R. 3550 and urges his colleagues to vote for it.

Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. Few responsibilities of the Federal government touch the lives of American families like funding for our Nation's highways. Whether you are a business owner moving product or a parent getting the kids to school before going to work in the morning, we all recognize the importance of well-designed and maintained roadways.

And with almost 9 million Americans out of work and 47,500 jobs created for every billion dollars put toward federal highway and transit spending, we recognize that investing in our highways is an investment in our Nation's future, in our families and in our quality of life.

While all of our States have transportation needs, by no means are they equal. At the same time I-95 truck traffic is expected to double in 10 to 15 years, the Northeast has one of the oldest highway and transit infrastructure systems, as well as some of the oldest and most heavily used bridges in the United States. Last week's fuel tanker crash on 1-95 in Bridgeport only highlighted these shortcomings, pointing to Connecticut's dire need for a viable alternative to our congested highways.

I believe most members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee would agree we should provide at least as much funding nationally as the other body has.

I remain concerned about ongoing attempts to raise the minimum guarantee rate in this bill to 95 percent. Raising the minimum guarantee not only destroys the concept of needs-based aid, it does so at a time when assistance is most urgently needed.

Mr. Chairman, as this legislation moves to conference, it is critical that we remain committed to providing funding to the States that require improvements the most. That is how this body can serve the Nation best, and that is what this bill should aspire to.

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

Mr. Chairman, I feel somewhat like the sinner appearing before the bishop when Your Honorable is in the Chair; but with all due respect, I do relish this moment. We are here today to support H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, known as TEA LU.

This bill is a result of a great deal of hard work and cooperation by the Members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on a bipartisan basis.

I want to first thank the ranking minority member of our committee, my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). He has been a real champion of transportation, working with me to craft this legislation.

I also want to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee of Highways, Transit and Pipelines, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). His leadership and dedication contributed greatly to bringing this bill to the floor today.

He has traveled many, many miles to try to bring the information and gather the information from the citizens of this great Nation.

In addition, I appreciate the support and cooperation of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), ranking minority member of the subcommittee. This effort demonstrates that, through bipartisanship, working together in cooperation, we can achieve I believe great things and legislate great things in this body.

I particularly want to thank our Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), for his leadership in moving this important legislation along. He has ensured that this body will be able to work its will and proceed as an independent branch of our government under our Constitution, and I do deeply appreciate his support.

In addition, we could not have brought this bill to the floor today without the support and assistance of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) from the Committee on Ways and Means. Chairman Thomas is proposing some changes to existing law that will provide additional revenues into the Highway Trust Fund. His proposal makes it possible to achieve a better bill, and I appreciate his advice and counsel.

Lastly, I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) of the Committee on the Budget. He and his staff have been invaluable in ensuring that we continue the principles contained in TEA 21 that guarantee that highway trust funds will be spent on transportation, as promised to the American people. We have worked closely together to reach an agreement that meets both our needs at this point in time.

We have worked with other committee chairmen on provisions contained in the bill; and, without their help, we would not have been able to bring this bill to the floor today. We will continue to work with other committees in a cooperative fashion as we proceed to conference.

Mr. Chairman, traffic congestion, poor roads and hazardous highways are not Republican or Democrat problems. These are problems shared by all Americans, from all walks of life or economic conditions and all political parties.

Today, congestion on our highways is greatly reducing the quality of life for American families. Congestion, congestion, congestion causes over $67 billion in lost productivity and wasted fuels, $67 billion lost that produces nothing. It costs the average driver $1,160 a year and more than a week and a half spent stuck in traffic. I want to stress that again. Average driver, $1,160 a year and more than a week and a half spent stuck in traffic.

H.R. 3550 provides a new emphasis and a new program to relieve congestion, maximize roadway capacity and remove bottlenecks. In addition, more than 42,000 Americans are killed and 3.3 million are seriously injured each year on our highways. Nearly a third of the fatal crashes are caused by poor roads and roadside hazards. These fatalities are totally preventable.

H.R. 3550 creates a new core program for highway safety infrastructure improvements, a new high-risk rural road safety program and supports a number of safety programs aimed at human factors that contribute to accidents.

Mr. Chairman, we live in a global economy. Moving freight quickly and on time is absolutely essential to remain competitive and to retaining our

economic well-being. Other countries, such as China, are investing first in their transportation infrastructure because they know that without roads they cannot grow their economies. The United States must be willing to make transportation a top priority if we are to retain our economic leadership.

H.R. 3550 funds five programs designed to improve movement of freight, including funding for border infrastructure, intermodal connectors, projects of regional and national significance and a new corridor infrastructure program.

The bill also provides funding for construction of dedicated truck lanes. This will mean not only faster moving of freight but a vast improvement in safety on increasingly crowded interstates.

Public mass transportation is a key component in our cities. Seniors, the disabled and low-income families rely heavily on public transportation. In addition, without transit our highways would be so congested that we would not be able to move at all.

Therefore, H.R. 3550 continues our commitment to provide for public transportation both to our cities and to many rural areas where the need is great.

America's transportation needs are obvious to anyone who spends time on our roads and highways. We are a Nation stuck in traffic. We based the funding level of H.R. 3550 on the administration's conditions and performance report which set forth the needs of our transportation system.

In addition, we received far more requests from Members for funding of projects than we could possibly accommodate. That proves to me that the needs are real and that they are growing.

Mr. Chairman, this has been never been a want bill. This is a needs bill for this great Nation. So I am disappointed we have had to reduce the funding for many of the very good programs that we proposed in H.R. 3550 as introduced.

Failure to address our transportation needs will leave our country behind in protecting our economy. Mr. Chairman, that is not acceptable to this chairman. It will reduce the quality of life of our citizens if we do not pass this bill.

H.R. 3550 is a bill which embodies our vision for a better transportation legacy for America's future. I urge everyone during this debate and discussion of the bill to be able to listen to the merits of the legislation and support what is right for America.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for the purpose of a colloquy with the chairman.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania very frankly for his hard work on this issue. It is a pleasure to work with him.

I understand the needs these small transit systems face. I certainly support the growth, as I told the gentleman personally, of transit throughout the United States, especially in the thriving smaller communities such as in the gentleman's congressional district.

I want to assure my colleague that, as we go forward with this bill, I welcome his continued assistance on this matter and the gentleman's knowledge. I look forward to working with my colleague on this issue as we go through the conference to finding a reasonable and responsible solution to this problem, and I can assure my colleague that probably will happen.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

(Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

(Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

In closing, I would like to thank all the Members who have spoken in favor of this bill. There is no one who spoke against the bill. There will be approximately 11 more amendments offered. I believe this bill is properly structured.

And I have to say this. I again want to stress one thing. I came to this House 31 years ago. I came to this House to work to achieve legislation, and I believe we can only do that by working together. It is something I believe very strongly in. And I know there are those who do not agree with me, who do not want to achieve, but to bicker; and I do not think this is what this House is all about.

So I again congratulate the other side, the minority, at this time for their willingness to work with me and I to work with them to achieve a goal. And I think we have partially reached it in this legislation.

Because of certain media reports about the 375, I have to remind those that might be listening to this or are watching that the 375 that I chose 2\1/2\ years ago with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) was not an artificial number. It was not a ``wanna'' number. This is a number that came from this administration just to maintain and improve a little bit. There was only one way we could have gotten there, and that was by, in fact, increasing user fees. And of course that has run into tremendous opposition from different people, everybody knows who. But I hope they understand what we are really trying to do in this legislation; and what we should have been doing with the 375 is the future of this Nation because at this period of time before elections, we hear a lot of people talking about Social Security, Medicare, education, border patrol, homeland security, prescription drugs; and they are all good and they are all needed. But there is only one way we can have the financial revenue to get those achievements done, and that is to have a good infrastructure system in place for the future. Without a good infrastructure system, we do not have the economic capability of doing those things everybody wants us to do.

This is not a new idea. Eisenhower saw it and built the interstate system 50 years ago and made this the greatest Nation not just for security purposes, but to be able to move goods and products and people to and from and establish industries because of that infrastructure system put in place 50 years ago.

Now we have competition internationally. We have nations that recognize this. We did not win the Cold War because of our military might. In fact, we did not even win the Second World War because of our military might. We won it because we could deliver troops, products, food, and people across this Nation to the manufacturing points. China, as said in my opening statement, now recognizes that. And we hear a lot of China, about outsourcing. We hear a lot about China and their economic growth; but they recognize why we were great, and I stress that word ``were,'' because they are going to build in 15 years the same amount of highways that it took us 60 years to build in the United States to tie their provinces together, like we tied our States together, so there would be no more warlords. They will have a united China with 4.5 billion people to be able to produce and compete with anyone in this world and probably beat them on all forms of products, especially when Russia is right next door with all the natural resources that they use to do that production.

And the foresight, I believe, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and I have had to see that challenge and try to rise to that occasion to make sure this Nation has the ability to compete internationally, that is what this bill is about and what it should be as more.

And that is why in this bill I have a reopener, and I have people objecting to that, because I believe our economy is coming back, but our needs to move people is also increasing at a dramatic

rate, and I want to have my grandkids and my great grandkids and my great, great grandkids to have the advantages and ability to compete globally because of the infrastructure system that we will put in place.

I have told my adversaries that are against my 375 that I will be back. I will continue this fight because I believe in it so strongly for this Nation. I believe this House has a responsibility to leave a proper legacy behind for the future generations of this great Nation. I hope everybody that listens to the debate as far as the amendments go understands that we are going to listen to them. We will vote some down; we will accept them, but when it is all said and done that we step forth with this bill tomorrow I hope in the near hours to start the process to leave a legacy behind for this great Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I submit the following two letters for the Record.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, March 26, 2004.

Hon. Don Young, Chairman,

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Young: I am writing with regard to H.R. 3550,

the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, which was

ordered reported by the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure on March 24, 2004. As you know, the Energy and

Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over matters involving

air quality planning and the air quality impact of

transportation projects, the Congestion Mitigation Air

Quality Program, provisions involving energy production,

supply and storage and other matters contained within H.R.

3550 as reported.

I recognize your desire to bring this legislation before

the House in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, I will not

exercise my Committee's right to a referral. By agreeing to

waive its consideration of the bill, however, the Energy and

Commerce Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R.

3550. In addition, the Energy and Commerce Committee reserves

its right to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill

that are within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate

conference that may be convened on this legislation. I ask

for your commitment to support any request by the Energy and

Commerce Committee for conferees on H.R. 3550 or similar

legislation.

I request that you include this letter as part of the

Committee's Report on H.R. 3550 and in the Record during

consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank

you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

Joe Barton,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I am very deeply touched by the words of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), our committee chairman. We have worked closely together on shaping this legislation.

In a time when the image of the U.S. Congress to the rest of America is one of divisiveness and partisanship, this committee may well have set a model for how a legislative body ought to work, an interplay of ideas coming at the same issue, toward the same objective, with different viewpoints, openly debated, intensively discussed, thoroughly explored and a resolution that is in the public interest. It has been inclusive. It has been partnership rather than partisanship on this committee.

That is a great tribute to the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), who have put their best efforts forth, and to our respective professional staff who have carried the burden of the day time and again on what to others might be an arcane aspect of very complex issues but which are vitally important.

So, as the Chairman said, we come to the floor with a bill that serves the best, broadest interests of transportation in America. It is a bipartisan product. It is one that should be $100 billion more, as the Chairman alluded to, without using that number, but we all know where we need to be, and to the gentleman from Alaska's (Chairman Young) great credit, Mr. Chairman, he has advocated openly, vigorously in every venue, in this body, with the executive branch and in the public, as I have, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) have done for a more robust funding which we need, which we all know is necessary to address the transportation needs of America, keep our economy mobile, growing, productive and competitive in the world marketplace.

We do in the political arena what we can do, and what we can do here today under the circumstances is bring a bill at $275 billion that is good policy, sound policy for America, will move America forward.

Congestion is clogging the arteries of transportation in our urban areas, in our close-in suburban areas and is affecting rural America as well. Congestion is slowing the movement of people and goods, extending our daily commute, driving the cost of goods up in the marketplace, driving up the frustration of American drivers, making our roadways less safe, costing America more in the long run.

UPS, for example, estimates that for every 5-minute delay they lose $40 million nationwide. There are numerous other examples of costs of delay. The Texas Transportation Institute annually does a study of congestion in America. Their report in January of this year of 75 major metropolitan areas put the cost of congestion at $69.5 billion in just those 75 major metropolitan areas. That means that people are spending a week longer in their cars than they would if they could drive at posted highway speeds, buying four tanks of gasoline more than they would if they could drive at posted highway speeds, and using the name of the Lord more frequently in traffic on weekdays than they do in church on Sundays, I suspect.

We propose to address that problem by attacking bottlenecks in our transportation system, addressing with a megaprojects program huge conflagrations of people, goods, all modes of transportation, passenger rail, freight rail, trucks, passenger cars, maritime, aviation, and loosen the bonds of congestion in those areas with an initiative we call megaprojects, whose result will be net national benefits, net regional multistate benefits and net benefits to our national economy.

We are not just a continental economy. We are a global economy. China is investing, Japan is investing in its infrastructure, Europe is investing in its infrastructure to move goods and people faster, more efficiently, but America is not moving fast enough.

The study that in TEA 21 we commissioned the Department of Transportation to do, an assessment of pavement conditions, bridge conditions, congestion and safety, produced a report that recommended an investment of $375 billion on the grounds that we ought to be investing at all levels of government $125 billion a year in infrastructure improvement and we were only investing $75 billion. We are $50 billion a year short.

So, to keep our place in the competitiveness in the world marketplace, we need to do this. This is an investment that stays here in America. It stays home. The jobs created are American jobs. They are not created in Taiwan or Korea or Japan. They are created here in America, with American goods, American materials; and we ought to make that investment to make our economy move more efficiently, to put 1.7 million more construction workers back to work, generate an additional $80 billion a year in economic activity and keep America moving.

This bill will get us on the right track toward that objective.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 25 seconds to express my deep gratitude to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines. He has been a true partner in this enterprise with the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of his subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and myself, contributing his time, days and nights and weekends, calling from home, calling from his district office, lending his consummate grasp of transportation issues from the transportation hub of America, Chicago, where all of America's complexities are joined.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), who is a great friend and a great contributor to this product.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.Holden), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), our resident urban planner and thoughtful member of this committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), our committee resident legal scholar.

(Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, may I have a compilation of the time remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

(Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Colorado has identified an issue that has been highlighted by the National Transportation Safety Board. I am in full sympathy with the gentleman, and we will work to accomplish that objective.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

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

We have heard a wide range of thoughtful views, some of them expressed in very hurried fashion due to the time limitations. But if we had 24 hours of debate, there would not have been enough time to hear all the views of all Members because transportation really undergirds our entire economy.

I leave one statistic with my colleagues. In 1987 the cost of logistics, moving people and goods, consumed 16 percent of our gross domestic product of this country. Last year logistics consumed just under 10 percent of our gross domestic product. That is a gain of $600 billion in our $10 trillion economy. That investment gain is due to the investments that we have made through this committee in cooperation with States and localities improving our infrastructure. That is the core of why we are on the floor today, to advance the Nation's economy, productivity, and competitiveness at home and abroad.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Our transportation system continues to face tremendous challenges. Tens of thousands of lives are lost each year on our highways. More drivers are driving more miles, causing severe congestion. An aging infrastructure is putting a strain on State and local transportation budgets. The public rightly demands safer, less congested roads and more transportation choices.

Fundamental improvements to the entire transportation system depend on solid research. Solid research will translate to saved lives, saved money and saved time by providing the tools and information needed to produce solutions. How many of us have used an EZ Pass to breeze past congestion at a toll booth? Or been gently reminded to stay on the road by a rumble strip?

Examples abound of these sorts of benefits gained by transportation research, such as research on pavements focuses on manipulating substances at the molecular level to create materials that are more durable and last significantly longer. This saves money, because more durable pavements need less maintenance and are replaced less frequently. It also saves time, reducing construction zones that are a major cause of congestion.

Furthermore, research on transit focuses on how to make transit systems more cost-effective and efficient. Better transit systems give people more choices and save time by reducing the number of cars on the road.

Research in the social sciences focuses on understanding how future changes in where people live and work will affect future transportation usage, so that planners can make early, smart investments to ensure that we meet future transportation needs.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards of the Committee on Science, I introduced H.R. 3551, the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act. This legislation, which was approved by the full Committee on Science on February 4, increases stakeholder input, expands competition and peer review of research proposals, and ensures greater accountability so that this research actually supports the goals of our transportation system.

I am pleased that the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and his staff have worked very closely with me and my staff to incorporate much of the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act and its intent into TEA LU. While I wish we could have provided more funding for research, I must especially thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for ensuring that, as funding for TEA LU was reduced from $375 billion to $275 billion, research was treated fairly. That was not the case 6 years ago during consideration of TEA 21.

I especially wanted to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for his pledge to work with me to continue to improve the research title and its funding as we discuss this issue with the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, when most of us think about the highway bill, we ten to focus on funding levels for our States and projects. Few of us think about transportation research. But transportation research is fundamental to all aspects of our transportation system. How many of us have used an EZ Pass to breeze past congestion at a toll both? Or have been gently, or not so gently reminded to stay on he road by a rumble strip? How many of us have benefited from pavements that are quieter and last longer than they did 30 years ago? Every driver and passenger is better off today because of past investments in transportation research and technology development.

Our transportation system continues to face tremendous challenges. Tens of thousands of lives are lost each year on our highways. More drivers are driving more miles, causing severe congestion. An aging infrastructure is putting a strain on State and local transpiration budgets. Changing patterns of where people live and work demand innovative planning for our future needs. The public rightly demands safer, less congested roads, and more transportation choices realizing that we can't simply build more roads to address all of these challenges, especially in urban areas, we must look for new ways to improve the overall system.

Fundamental improvements to the entire transportation system depend on solid research, Solid research will translate to saved lives, saved money and saved time by providing the tools and information needed to produce solutions. For example:

Research on pavements focuses on manipulating substances at the molecular level to create materials that are more durable and last significantly longer. This saves money, because more durable pavements need less maintenance and are replaced less frequently. It also saves time, reducing construction zones that are a major cause of congestion;

Reseach on operations focuses on improving the design of dangerous merges and intersections. This research saves lives by providing planners the information to design safer roads. It also saves time by reducing accidents, which cause congestion;

Research on transit focuses on how to make transit systems more cost- effective and efficient. Better transit systems give people more choices, and save time by reducing the number of cars on the road; and

Research in the social sciences focuses on understanding how future changes in where people live and work will affect future transportation usage, so that planners can make early, smart investments to ensure that we meet future transportation needs at lower costs.

As chairman of the Environment, Technology and Standards Subcommittee of the Committee on Science, I introduced H.R. 3551, the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act. This legislation, which was approved by the full Science Committee on February 4:

Provides necessary but prudent increases to transportation research funding;

Increases stakeholder input to ensure that the people who must implement and use the research agree that it is worthwhile and applicable;

Creates the highest quality research through increased competition and peer review; and

Ensures greater accountability so that this research actually supports the goals of our transportation system.

I am pleased that Chairman Young and his staff have worked very closely with me, and my staff, to incorporate much of my legislation and its intent into TEA-LU. While I think we all agree that we wish we could have provided more funding for research, I must especially thank Mr. Young for ensuring that as funding for TEA-LU was reduced from $375 billion to $275 billion, research was treated fairly. That wasn't the case 6 years ago during consideration of TEA-21. And I want to thank Mr. Young for his pledge to work with me to continue to improve the research title and its funding in conference as we discuss these issues with the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), my partner in this endeavor, very much for those extremely kind words and for yielding me this time. It is always a pleasure working with him on any transportation issue, because no one, not only in this country but no one on this Earth, knows as much about transportation as the gentleman from Minnesota does.

I want to begin today by thanking all of my colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure from both sides of the aisle for all of their efforts and dedication. Many of my colleagues in this body have spent many, many hours meeting with countless numbers of individuals and organizations to hear their views.

In particular, I give special mention to three individuals, the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), who has been tireless in trying to develop a bill that will aid and assist us in this country in improving our transportation and infrastructure; the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), who I mentioned earlier, and who, as I said, knows more about transportation than anyone that you will ever encounter, for the great help that he has been in formulating this bill; and the gentleman from Wisconsin, (Mr. Petri), who has gone around the country and seen firsthand so many, many of the needs we have here. He has really been the individual who has brought so much information back to us, telling us where the needs really existed in this country.

These three Members have provided tremendous leadership in getting this bill to where we are today. However, it should not be viewed that this bill was crafted only by members of our committee. Since our committee began to work on this bill, we have asked for and received input and comments from almost every single Member in this body. We have held dozens of hearings, with the active participation of many of my colleagues in this Chamber. And, most importantly, we have listened to what they had to say.

Because of this and the bipartisan history of this committee, I believe we have a very good piece of legislation that reflects many different priorities promoted by Members who represent diverse constituencies and interests. It truly is democracy at work.

As I have said, I believe we have a very solid piece of legislation. While I will be the first one to say that it is not entirely perfect, there is no doubt in my mind that at this particular time this bill is as perfect as we can make it. We have made some significant strides in improving this country's infrastructure, and these accomplishments will benefit Americans now and into the future.

In this bill we have increased funding from $218 billion to $275 billion. While this is not the original funding level proposed by the committee, this still represents a decent increase.

It is important to bear in mind that this legislation is not just about money. It is not just about funding. It is also about innovation and moving transportation policy in new directions. There are many, many things we can point to in this bill. This bill contains new initiatives that will improve our quality of life. We have strengthened current programs to meet our existing conditions, and we have expanded and created new programs to address the needs of today and prepare for the needs of the future.

This bill creates a number of such programs, such as a new and improved National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement program, Highway Safety Improvement program, Small Starts Transit program, and Safe Routes to Schools. This is certainly not the entire list of new programs, but these are examples of new programs that will represent the collected efforts of many individuals and many organizations that have contributed to this bill on the floor today.

Other important programs included are an improved clean fuels formula grant for nonattainment areas like northeastern Illinois, Southern California, New York City, and Washington, D.C. These funds will help transit agencies purchase clean fuel buses and help improve our air quality. Improving air quality is just one of the many important public policy needs that the TEA LU bill addresses.

In this bill, it is recognized that transit is not just for big cities; it is also a growing need in rural communities. To help meet the needs of rural America, we have increased funding to the section 5311 program.

Time after time, survey after survey, Americans point to traffic congestion as a growing and serious problem in

this country. In 2001 alone, congestion costs this country $69.5 billion. And, on average, Americans lose 27 hours a year due to delays. As congestion levels continue to rise in the United States, we must focus on modernizing our vital transportation infrastructure and improving the quality of life for all Americans. By targeting Federal resources for specific purposes, this bill would also help improve congestion in major urban areas across this country by creating a safer, more efficient infrastructure for the millions of Americans who use our roads, highways, railways, and bridges each day.

As we continue to move forward with TEA LU, it is easier to think about what may have been. Yes, it would have been nice to have a $375 billion bill; but because of this administration's opposition to raising the highway user fee, this is the hand that we have been dealt. Right here and right now, this is the most practical way to maintain highways, roadways, buses and subways, and protect the safety of the American public.

This bill is a significant step in the right direction. It is a step towards improving our communities, a step towards helping folks spends less time commuting and more time with their families and loved ones; it is a step towards safer travel; and it is a step towards cleaner air. I hope you will take this step with me and lend us your support.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would also ask that the committee give this issue more review and consideration as we consider future legislation, be it a technical correction amendments or the reopener legislation that the bill before us envisions.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).