Providing for 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.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska has adequately explained the manager's amendment. It needs no further elaboration, and I support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed the gentlewoman's amendment, we have been discussing it for quite some time in committee. This will make it possible to put that information that is already required to be reported on the Internet, and we have agreed on our side to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

The thrust of this amendment is to adversely affect States, and Members in States, who put priority on transit projects, bus-related projects by deducting dollar for dollar from their apportionments the funds that Members have decided their State needs, their district needs, that is in the interest of their constituents and deducting that from the core surface transportation program apportionment to the individual State, and then it would redistribute those dollars elsewhere in the country. That is totally contrary to the basic principle of Member high-priority projects.

As former Chairman Bud Shuster used to say, Members of Congress are not potted plants. We know our districts. We know what the needs are. Chairman Young has reiterated that principle, that Members understand the needs of their State, and when they are bypassed, when the State DOT does not address the needs in their districts, then we give them an opportunity once every 6 years to do that in the transportation bill, to designate projects according to the needs that Members see best.

The pending amendment would undermine that principle, would redistribute dollars, would take money away from some States, give it to others, punish some because they think transit is more important than a highway project in their State, Member projects.

In addition to that, a Member that has designated a project for interstate maintenance, for congestion mitigation and air quality improvement, for a bridge project, for a national highway system, will be adversely affected by this amendment. Members that have highway priorities as well will find their project simply thrown to the wind and redistributed around the country. That is not adhering to the principle that we have established. It may be very well intentioned, but its effect is highly adverse, undermines the principle that Members of Congress know their districts, are responding to the needs of their constituents, are recommending investments and, in many cases, giving States flexibility as we do in Minnesota. If they are not ready to move ahead with a project I have designated, they can use that dollar amount for a project elsewhere in the State. Its effect is severely adverse.

I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

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

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

I just want to point out to the gentleman from Indiana, whom I greatly respect, that the total for Indiana under TEA LU would be $4.96 billion, a substantial increase of funding over TEA 21.

The point again is that we have distributed these dollars according to a percentage of the total funding available under TEA LU to give Members the authority to designate projects to address transportation needs that they see by their best lights from their constituents in their districts and not be bypassed and run over by State DOTs. It has worked in TEA 21, and it is going to work here.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I respect the gentlewoman's good intention. As we heard on a previous amendment, there was a good intention but an unfortunate result, and there would be a similar unfortunate result here. I have never been supportive of toll roads. Current law allows toll credits only when that toll road has been built without Federal aid. This amendment would extend an already, in my view, unacceptable principle further. It would extend to roads built with Federal assistance the credit that then could be applied to other projects. I just think that that is not a good policy direction.

I do not think we ought to be encouraging more toll road developments. It is not going to expand the universe of roads. Toll roads are just kind of a one-time hit. We are establishing in this legislation a national program of continuing existence with the Highway Trust Fund.

The only problem with it is we are not putting enough money into it for the next 6 years, and we will do that after the next year after we get through this election. So we really ought not to be moving in this direction, and I assume the chairman agrees with me on this.

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

I compliment the gentleman on raising a very important issue. I also want to point out to the House that this is a complex aspect of transportation law involving Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement issues. It involves a very technical aspect of the particulate standards, the air quality standards, for coarse particulate matter or fine particulate matter, those that are 10 or 2.5.

In principle, I think I would be in favor of what the gentleman is trying to accomplish, but the language of the wording gives us some trouble yet. And if the gentleman would bear with us through the bill and into conference, I think we can get this matter worked out in a manner that is acceptable to achieve the objective he is seeking.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Chairman, that is essentially, broadly stated, the issue.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona, with further comment in how that issue would be interpreted and how it would be applied.

Mr. Chairman, exactly. The question is, How will the funds be allocated? And I think we need to just understand that better and have it spelled out more clearly so that we understand what is happening and we do not run into something we did not anticipate.

I yield further to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Chairman, exactly. I think what we would like to do is exchange some language and refine that language and refer to the original CMAQ and look at the distribution tables, allocation of funds; and I think we will be able to find a way to accommodate the gentleman's objective.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

I thank the gentleman for a very dignified discussion and outcome. I think it is in the best interest of good policy, and we will work with the gentleman in the coming weeks as we go forward.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I want to frame this issue here carefully. The purpose of the HOV lanes is to encourage more people to ride in a car than to continue encouraging single-occupancy vehicle travel. Now, the idea of an exemption for hybrid vehicles was to encourage their development, their production, and that is happening in California, to the great credit of that State. So now we are seeing sort of the hybrid vehicle production take off. But in that process, the principle of HOV lanes seems to be falling behind, with more single-passenger vehicles traveling.

So the language of the gentleman's amendment is not perfectly clear. We would be willing to accept language that makes it clear that the State can choose to exempt a hybrid vehicle, not that they are required to exempt. Is that the intent of the gentleman's amendment, that the State will have the choice, not that they are required to exempt from paying a toll on an HOV toll lane?

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the chairman, we could accept the amendment, with the understanding as we get into conference, this language needs to be tightened up.

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

Mr. Chairman, very simply stated, this amendment would bypass the determination of the Secretary to make decisions on corridors and substitute judgment in this body for that of the Secretary looking at a national picture, and that is the wrong way to proceed. We should not do that.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Missouri has been quite persistent and thoughtful in his pursuit of this amendment and very genuine, and I think one of the adversely affected companies is located in the State of Missouri and has expressed their concerns about the effects of current law.

The gentleman has sought a way to provide some relief. I rise in very strong opposition to the language, with great respect for the gentleman, a member of our committee.

It would supersede State law in 15 States that have already adopted laws to apply vicarious liability to car rental companies. The reason they have done so is that if a car rental company rents to a person who has no insurance, the rental company is the one that is best suited to assume the responsibility. They have done this action in their judgment in the best interest of the consumer.

Now, we have not had hearings in depth that would explore all aspects of this issue. It is a very complex issue of State law, and it varies from one part of the country to another. But States, as far as we can ascertain, that have adopted such a policy have concluded that, without it, harm to innocent children, to bystanders would go totally uncompensated, even if the rental car company had leased, say, to an obvious drug abuser or someone with a very bad driving record.

States, including mine of Minnesota, have reached an independent policy determination on this matter. I do not think Congress should weigh in to supersede the State judgment on this matter.

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

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

How much time is remaining on both sides, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

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

If I allow another person to use my car and that person has an accident, I am liable. Why should rental car companies be different? If States choose to make them liable under these circumstances, as our State of Minnesota does, then why should the Congress substitute a different judgment for that of the States?

Without extensive hearings, without a deep inquiry into this subject matter, this is an inappropriate time, inappropriate amendment, inappropriate place to do it, and the amendment preferably should be withdrawn and we could work on it, perhaps through conference, otherwise defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, again, this is like, as so often we will see on these amendments on the floor, an amendment that is well intentioned but has adverse consequences. I support the environmental benefits that can be achieved with clean air technologies. In the manager's amendment, the chairman and I have worked on it and our staff have worked on congestion mitigation, air quality improvement, and surface transportation program funds, the largest of the core programs, to assure that these funds may be used to support stand-alone truck electrification technologies, because we saw in testimony in hearings that there are such technologies that are very, very low-weight, with high benefits.

This issue came up in the House-Senate Energy Conference, and I addressed this issue in the Conference and raised objections. Mr. Chairman, 400 pounds may seem insignificant, but it will have serious consequences on safety of our driving public and on the roads. Bigger trucks, more road damage. If all trucks had that extra 400 pounds, $600 million a year in extra road damage. Over the life of this bill, that will add up to over $3.5 billion in road damage.

The point is, why are we picking, or why pick 400 pounds? There is a wide range of technologies that have far less weight that have very significant improvements that show idling reduction technologies do, in fact, pay for themselves and reduce costs in less than 2 years. There are other technologies that will provide the same clean air benefits as the one addressed in this amendment.

So I think rather than just pick out one particular technology, one that weighs 400 pounds or less, whatever, this is not the right way to approach the issue.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

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

Mr. Chairman, very simply, trucks come to a truck stop. They want to use this 400-pound technology to run their Air King unit. There is better technology, does not have the weight, they can plug it in and not put that added weight on the roadway. We should not accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

I appreciate the intent of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird). It is a sense of Congress amendment to clarify that the Buy America Act applies to overall projects and not just to component parts. It is in keeping with the purpose, the thrust of our intent to keep more jobs in America, not let them go overseas, keep products that go into our highway and bridge program built in America, not built overseas.

And I can speak from personal experience. In the harbor between Duluth and Lake Superior, when a new bridge was being built 22 years ago and the bridge had been bid and the State of Wisconsin was the one responsible for building that bridge, they allowed $1 million of Japanese steel to go into the center arch span.

That is when I sprang to the defense of American steel and got the amendment that has now been in law for all these years that we have American steel in U.S. Federal-aid highway programs. So I am in accord with the purpose of the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, under my reservation may I inquire of our Chair whether the majority has seen the language.

I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 593 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of both the rule we are considering now as well as the underlying legislation. Before I get into the legislation itself, I would like to briefly speak about the rule. Mr. Speaker, this is a very fair and balanced rule. The Committee on Rules received a total of 59 amendments for our consideration, and this rule makes in order 23 of those 59 amendments that were submitted to us. It includes 14 amendments offered by Republicans, eight amendments offered by Democrats, and one bipartisan amendment. The rule also makes in order a very bipartisan manager's amendment, which addresses a significant number of concerns that have been raised by many Members.

The rule also includes an important provision from the Committee on Ways and Means to ensure fiscal solvency of the Highway Trust Fund, as well as a provision relating to the mass transit guarantee.

Mr. Speaker, this provision is necessary to ensure that current flexibilities and authorities of Congress to set appropriate annual spending levels for basic salaries and administrative expenses for the Federal Transit Administration are maintained.

Under current law, the Committee on Appropriations can adjust spending in this account so long as those savings are rolled into other mass transit programs and the full transit guarantees are preserved. The underlying bill, as reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, restricted the ability of the Committee on Appropriations to adjust spending on an account-by-account basis. The amendment to the bill included in this rule simply provides guidance in interpreting existing rules of the House to ensure that the status quo is maintained. This is not intended to provide any new authority whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that I will continue to work with the committees to perfect language to ensure that the provisions achieve the intended purpose. Legislating House rules in this manner is not my preferred way to proceed.

Regrettably, however, when TEA 21 was enacted, changes to the House rules were legislated within the authorizing statute and were not implemented through the regular order of the House.

Instead, they were and are continuing to be legislated by a committee that does not have any jurisdiction over this matter.

I want to make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Committee on Rules has and will retain its jurisdiction over the rules of the House. As part of our review of budget enforcement procedures, this and other budgetary enforcement mechanisms will be further scrutinized. It is my hope that the affected committees will continue to work with the Committee on Rules to ensure that all changes to the rules of the House are thoughtful and reasoned. But, Mr. Speaker, despite my reservations over some portions of the legislation, I want to reiterate my strong support for the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users, reauthorizes our Nation's surface transportation programs for the next 6 years. The very core of this bill is safety and congestion relief.

Investing in transportation infrastructure has fundamental impacts on our quality of life, our Nation's economic growth and, as was just said by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, our competitiveness in the world. Our highways, transit systems, pipelines, airports, harbors and waterways serve as the backbone of our economy by moving people and goods, employing millions of workers, and generating a significant share of total economic output.

Transportation-related goods and services generate 10 percent of our total gross domestic product. In making our infrastructure backbone stronger, TEA LU provides safety improvements that will save lives. Many of the more than 42,000 highway fatalities each year can be prevented by building better roads and improving the safety features of existing roads. Commercial motor vehicles are involved in 12 percent of all crashes resulting in a fatality. Carriers transporting extremely hazardous materials must ensure that sufficient safety and security measures are in place to accomplish that transportation without loss of life, injury or property damage.

Improvements in safety include the movement of freight from ship to shore, which must be conducted in a safe, efficient, secure manner in order to improve air quality and decrease congestion.

Congestion relief is imperative. American families do not need books of statistics to know that traffic congestion has increased. We all know that rush hour starts earlier in the day and ends later at night, creating more travel time than ever before. Congestion also negatively impacts our environment by increasing emissions and wasting fuel. Vehicles in stop-and-go traffic not only emit more pollutants than they do when operating without frequent breaking and acceleration, but obviously they decrease fuel efficiency as well.

In my home State of California, improving safety while reducing congestion has never been more critical. As California is considered the Gateway to the Pacific Rim, 40 percent of the Nation's goods are imported through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The infrastructure supporting the movement of goods from ship to shore through Los Angeles and Long Beach will distribute an estimated $314 billion worth of trade by the year 2020.

Facilitating growth in trade is directly connected to the overall economic vitality of the entire Nation. Ninety-five percent of U.S. international cargo by volume is transported by ocean. According to the United States Trade Representative's Office, nearly 20 percent of all U.S. jobs are directly associated with international trade.

In the Southern California region alone, improvements to our infrastructure will reduce a projected 300 percent increase by 2020 in auto-truck traffic delays in points where freight moving on railroads impedes vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This is just one example of how TEA LU strengthens our transportation infrastructure into the next decade.

During this debate, you will hear the challenges we must still address in improving our surface transportation programs. Nobody can deny that the need is great and our resources are limited.

In addition, I look forward toward working that States receive their fair share. However, our critical task here is to ensure the safety of American families and to move people and goods throughout this country faster and more efficiently. This bill accomplishes that goal.

I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman

Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Petri), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Lipinski) on their leadership in crafting this important legislation.

To that end, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Linder), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules' Subcommittee on Technology.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern); and when he has completed his statement, if he would yield to me for 1 comment, I would appreciate it

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt my colleague when he was going through his prepared statement, but I did want to clarify one issue that the gentleman raised.

He said in his opening that this was an unusually restrictive rule, and I would just like to state for the Record that when the ISTEA legislation was considered, there were a total of 12 amendments made in order. That was in the 102nd Congress when the Democrats were in charge. When TEA 21 was considered, there were a total of six amendments made in order, Mr. Speaker; and then in this legislation we have provided for consideration of a total of 23 amendments.

So that is why I asked the gentleman to yield.

Mr. Speaker, all I was saying is that if you go and look at the pattern of consideration of transportation measures, when the gentleman's party was in control, half the number of amendments were made in order.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. We have looked into the history of rules that allow for consideration of transportation legislation. And going back to the 102nd Congress we found that 12 amendments were made in order. That was consideration of the ISTEA legislation. The TEA 21 legislation had six amendments made in order. And this measure will allow for 23 amendments. And I believe it will give an opportunity for full consideration. Actually, it is probably 23 more amendments than the distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), would have preferred because he is so proud of his work product; but we are going to allow Members the opportunity to have the chance to work their will on this very important measure.

If I had my way, the Federal Government would not be involved in these kinds of transportation decisions. In fact, I think that the notion of being able to completely turn back to the States the revenues that come into the trust fund and allowing States to make these decisions would be in many ways the wisest thing. But I have to face reality. And reality is that the Federal Government is involved in the issue of transportation. I believe for that reason we need to do it in the most responsible way.

This measure authorizes in excess of a quarter of a trillion dollars. A quarter of a trillion dollars. And I believe that as we look at the very important pressing needs out there, this is a level of funding that can allow us to make sure that we do improve our infrastructure.

We know that our infrastructure includes more than highways; it includes a wide range of other areas which have to do with transportation. And when we think about the ability of the United States of America to compete in this global economy, it is important for goods and services to be able to move around this country. It is important for U.S. manufacturers, for workers in this country to be able to get their goods to our Nation's ports so that they can, in fact, move into these new markets which this administration, and many of the rest of us, is working to pry open through new bilateral as well as multilateral trade agreements so that we can get into those markets.

And that is why I believe this is a very, very important measure for all of us. For our security, which is an important aspect of this measure, it is important that we improve our infrastructure here.

Let me say that when I think about that issue, I do have, as a Californian, a particular concern. My State is, in fact, the gateway to the Pacific Rim, Asia, Latin America. And a tremendous percentage of the goods that come to and from this country come through the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, as I said in my opening remarks.

And we have a very important issue that needs to be addressed in Southern California, the extension of the Alameda Corridor East, which is an issue that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) chose to address when he was testifying before the Committee on Rules as an important one.

With these two ports, Los Angeles and Long Beach, it is important now that we have the Alameda Corridor project that takes goods to downtown Los Angeles and brings goods into that Los Angeles area to get to the ports for export. We have to realize that there are areas to the east of Los Angeles that are impacted tremendously because of this new trade.

We have to realize that this also deals very closely with the issue of safety and making sure that in the area that I represent in the Inland Empire, east of downtown Los Angeles, that our emergency vehicles, ambulances, fire, police, that they are able to move as easily as possible throughout the area.

The Alameda Corridor East project is something that will be very, very greatly benefited by this legislation. And I think it is important that we proceed with that.

There are a wide range of other very important projects which will, as has been pointed out by many Members, create jobs to see this already strong and growing economy grow even stronger.

So I hope that my colleagues will join in a bipartisan way to agreeing to the previous question, making sure that we move ahead with this legislation and pass this measure with a strong bipartisan vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment under consideration would make improvements to H.R. 3550 as well as to make some technical corrections. More specifically, it would require more oversight of the use of Federal funds for transportation projects.

It allows funds to be used for additional planning activities under a pilot program. It would allow new activities under the Federal lands highway program to improve how projects are developed in conjunction with wildlife along the highways.

It would allow the Secretary to let States assume the responsibility of the Secretary for transportation enhancements, recreational trails and ITS projects.

It would require the Secretary to conduct a rulemaking to ensure that States are repairing or replacing damaged features on the National Highway System with highway features that have been tested, evaluated, and found to be acceptable under certain guidelines.

It makes a technical change to ensure that only new interstate facilities are eligible under the interstate system for construction of toll pilot programs.

It designates new highways for high-priority corridors on the National Highway System. It would require the Secretary to conduct a pavement-marking system evaluation study to improve safety on the highways.

It creates a national clearinghouse for the purpose of assembling and disassembling information relating to improvement of roadway work-zone safety.

It makes procedural improvements to the planning requirements for metropolitan areas in States regarding the Clean Air Act.

It directs the Secretary to create a model statute for the States to use when developing drunk-driving detection, prevention, and enforcement programs.

The budget title sets discretionary spending limits on outlays for the highway and mass transit budget categories and for new budget authority for the mass transit category and continues the budgetary fire walls for highway and transit programs.

It would improve the calculation of revenue-aligned budget authority, or RABA, to provide more accurate information of revenue to the Highway Trust Fund.

Finally, it sets the annual obligation limitations for the highway and transit programs for the fiscal years 2004 to 2009.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified in the form at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

First, Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for this amendment, and more than that for being able to communicate with the ranking member and myself on your wishes in your district, and being so kind to me when I was in your district this last year. I do thank you for that.

I have reviewed this amendment with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and we are willing to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition.

I understand what the gentleman from Arizona is trying to do, and I want to compliment the gentleman. He is one of the few people in this body who did not ask me for any earmarks. I do thank him for that. I understand what he is trying to say.

But I have to remind everybody about earmarks in this legislation. It is, in fact, a request from Members, and it is the one time they might have an opportunity to represent their district. That is very true. I have some Members in this body that get no money out of DOT in their district because they are sparsely populated and all the money goes to the large urban areas. This is one time there is a fairness doctrine. Every nickel that is earmarked in this bill goes to a form of transportation. No dollars go outside that for any other purpose, regardless of what you might read. It goes to a form of transportation.

I know what the gentleman is trying to do. He is right about what the appropriators have done in the past and will probably continue to do. This is an amendment that has good thought but does not have great merit. Because I do think it, in fact, will impede those States that have had projects of national significance or projects of high priority. They will be penalized from getting those projects accomplished.

I thank the gentleman for his presentation. I understand what the gentleman from Arizona is trying to do, but I do believe that the amendment is inappropriate at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

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

I will say that to the gentleman I do think the amendment has some merit; but as the gentleman mentioned, now with the shortage of dollars, et cetera, I would suggest that we continue to work with the gentlewoman as we go through this process and see if we cannot reach a solution to it. And I think that can be achieved. But at this time I would oppose the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed this amendment, and I believe, with consultation, we have agreed to the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will agree with that. I think it should be tightened up. It is something that both the author and, of course, the gentleman from California have spoken on; and we will continue working with you to see if we cannot make it adaptable to everybody.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) my support for this route. I have had the privilege of speaking to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John), everybody involved in this area; and my attention as time goes by as we go to the conference, this will be one of the routes that is considered as a high priority, because it is badly needed, not only for the State of Louisiana, but for the other States in proximity too.

I would like to say that we had enough money to do everything, but I am not going to say we do. But this is one of the areas that I am very strongly in support of, and I will do everything I can to see that we achieve those goals.

Mr. Chairman, I deeply respect my good friend that has offered this amendment, but I have a couple questions.

One, I have had the privilege of visiting a private company; it has developed a truck stop process whereby the trucks do have the same thing my colleague wants. What I understand his amendment does is he wants to raise the weight of the truck 400 pounds of added equipment to the truck so they do not have to stop at a truck stop. Is that correct?

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Chairman, well, I am just concerned about that because this company called Idle Air, it has done an outstanding job, and they are trying to do the job right without any government money or support. And they are doing exactly what my colleague wants to do, but the truck does have to go and they have their waiting time that they have to rest, refuel their trucks, et cetera.

And it seems to me if we add this extra 400 pounds for additional equipment, it would be detrimental to that individual company. That concerns me somewhat. I am sort of taking sides on that issue is what I am saying. With your proposal, would that hurt the company?

Mr. Chairman, we do have some problems with weight limitation on these trucks. Four hundred pounds does not sound like much; but if you add all the trucks up, we do not know the ramifications of the weight factor on the roads. And I really think the gentleman is on the right track, but I think we have to consider what that would do if, in fact, we raise that limitation to 400 pounds, do we raise the limitation on other aspects of the trucks such as a new engine which adds 3,000 pounds to the truck. We have not done that yet.

So I think we need to look at the total wear and tear on the road.

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

I am going to ask for a voice vote, and I really am not in opposition to it; but I do not have anybody else speaking on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we have not seen the language yet as far as the amendment. It is my indication I do not think we are going to object, but I would like to be able to read the language first. I do not think we have any objections to it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, throughout my 25 years of service in this House, I have always worked hard to ensure a bright economic future and a good quality of life for the people I represent. That is why I have consistently made transportation priorities of North Texas my own priorities here in Congress. I have always supported the Federal highway and transit bills that have come before the House, because I knew they would directly benefit the people of my area.

In 1998, for example, I voted in favor of TEA 21, the last transportation reauthorization bill passed by Congress. That bill widened a major thoroughfare in North Texas, Interstate 30, from six to eight and ten lanes, easing congestion in Dallas-Fort Worth and the surrounding areas.

TEA 21 also included important funding to expand DART, the Dallas Area Rapid Transit System. As one of DART's original supporters, I knew that by reducing motor vehicle traffic on our already-overcrowded roads, the system would significantly reduce air pollution and ease the commute of thousands of Dallas residents. An important byproduct of both these projects were the many, many good jobs created for our community.

So for me it has always been an easy decision to vote for the transportation bills in this House, and that is why today I am proud to rise in strong support of this year's transportation authorization bill, TEA LU.

TEA LU will be one of the most important bills we pass in Congress this year, and the reason is simple: Transportation projects stimulate economic activity in our home communities. Quite simply, this bill is good for our Nation's economy. In fact, the Federal Highway Administration reports that for every $1 billion in Federal funds invested in highway infrastructure, it creates 47,500 new jobs and $6.2 billion in economic activity.

So whenever Congress passes its transportation reauthorization bill, we do not simply reduce congestion and air pollution, we create jobs, good jobs that cannot be shipped overseas, and we create huge opportunities for our constituents by bringing the government, the private sector and the general public together to help grow the economy so that those good jobs stay here at home in our own communities.

There is no doubt that for far too many Americans, the U.S. economy is in bad shape. Over 8 million people are currently unemployed, the average length of unemployment has risen to 20.3 weeks, the longest duration since 1984, and no new private sector jobs were created last month. So, as you can see, Mr. Speaker, it is especially critical that we pass the transportation bill today.

The bill before us today continues to provide benefits for North Texas. It is my understanding that the bill contains $35 million in funding that I requested from the committee to replace Interstate 30 and Interstate 35 Trinity River bridges in Dallas and for the improvements to I-635 in Dallas. The bill also authorizes four new rail lines to expand DART in Dallas, including construction of a Northwest/ Southeast extension that will add 60,000 daily riders to the rail system.

So, by passing TEA LU, we will not only be reducing air pollution and easing congestion throughout the metropolitan area, we will be creating new jobs and a brighter economic future for North Texas.

Mr. Speaker, highway and transportation funding must never be subject to partisan politics. There is too much at stake for the American people, and there is too much at stake for the economy. I know that my colleagues all want the same thing for their constituents as I want for mine: clean air, better roads and good jobs. The bill before us today can set us on that path. I hope that today Members will set aside politics as usual and vote to pass TEA LU for the good of our communities and our entire Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a yea vote on the rule and on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that the bill before us today will ease congestion, reduce pollution, and create good jobs across America. Most Members of this House, myself included, will vote to pass TEA LU. But I think we are missing out on a unique opportunity to further strengthen our economy.

Last night the Committee on Rules and this morning considered the Davis-Menendez-Blumenauer-Baird amendment to strengthen investment in our Nation's highway and transit infrastructure by increasing funding in the bill to the Senate-passed level of $318 billion. However, in a move that denies the House the opportunity to fully debate the transportation needs of this country, as is usually the case when Democrats offer thoughtful alternatives in the Committee on Rules, the Republican majority defeated the amendment on a straight party-line vote.

So today I hope to offer Members another chance to vote on this important proposal. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will give the House the opportunity to debate and vote on the Davis substitute.

Mr. Speaker, although I hope to see more legislation to help the economy come before this House, the transportation bill before us today will be our best chance to spur job creation this year. And the Davis substitute will create nearly 1.8 million additional jobs over the bill we have on the floor today, with 120,000 new jobs in my home State of Texas alone, and create $235 billion worth of economic activity.

Mr. Speaker, when you consider the 8.2 million people in this country that are currently unemployed, I do not see how you can vote against a measure that will create 1.8 million new jobs.

So I urge my colleagues today to vote in favor of a job creation and economic development package by voting ``no'' on the previous question. We only reauthorize the transportation bill once every 6 years. Let us not squander this unique opportunity to create jobs and strengthen the economy by giving in to politics as usual.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials at this point in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that the quorum is not present and make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would dramatically improve an existing law provision, section 104(j), that was enacted as part of TEA 21.

Currently, the U.S. Department of Transportation produces an annual report to Congress on the use of Federal transportation funds by program, by type of investment, and by location within the States. My amendment would simply require that this information be provided to the public as well as via the Internet.

This is a nonpartisan amendment. It is broadly supported by a wide array of program partners, county officials, cities, mayors, metropolitan planning organizations, planners, architects and others.

Consider the current state of practice. Today, if you search the U.S. DOT's Web site for a section 104(j) report, you get ``no documents match.''

Now, the first question that will be asked is: Will this impose a burden on my State? No, absolutely not. This amendment would not impose any additional burden on the States.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their cooperation.

Mr. Chairman, I might add that this is not a heavy burden on the FHWA or U.S. DOT bureaucracy. This information is already collected, processed, and provided for the use of State Departments of Transportation, in a use-friendly format for those users. This amendment simply requires that the same information already being processed be provided to the taxpayers and their representatives.

Why ``user-friendly''? Lack of ease of Congressional oversight on this report led to a $5 billion discrepancy between Table 1 and Table 4(e) in this report in fiscal year 2000.

Because it is not electronically available as a manipulatable table, any summation that is not presented in the table must be done by hand, which is very difficult.

So, Federal Highway and the public would have a better product as a result of this amendment and the improved access to this information would improve the accuracy of the reporting. It is my belief that better reporting will lend much greater confidence to us as lawmakers as we fight to increase future spending through FHWA.

Federal funds for public transportation have long operated under much more stringent reporting measures.

My amendment is a simple change that would provide our constituents with some information about how their transportation taxes are being invested. They deserve to know if their tax dollars are being invested back into their community, or if the State is spending them elsewhere, and better understand how and where these resources are being invested on their behalf.

After all, we are talking about how more than $200 billion in the taxpayers' money will be spent over the next 6 years.

By adopting my amendment, this Congress can provide some very basic transparency and accountability with Americans' tax dollars in the Federal surface transportation program.

The time has come for FHWA to deliver us and the public a report that is more than a small stack of computer runs that can only be understood by a handful of financial experts at Federal Highway and U.S. DOT.

Let me close by simply urging my colleagues to accept this modest improvement to current law. It is one of the small things we can do to provide for more transparency and accountability to this process.

Taxpayers pay for this bill, and they deserve to understand more about how their tax dollars are spent on transportation infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this simple amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I know that this is an amendment that the State of Texas would like to have. I am happy to support my friend from Texas. In fact, I offered the same amendment in committee.

The amendment would change the calculation of toll credits by basing them on the proportion of non-Federal investment in toll projects. Support of this amendment does not mean that we promote or support toll roads per se, but supporting this amendment does recognize that State legislators that have chosen to pursue tolling should be able to have access to toll credits to invest in transportation options such as transit, bicycle, rail, and pedestrian infrastructure as well as road maintenance.

Toll credits create flexibility in the Federal-aid programs. Similar to the Programmatic Match provisions of the Surface Transportation Program, toll credits allow the expenditure of non-Federal funds on one project to serve as the match on another project. The benefit of having toll credits is to enable either a highway or a transit project to exchange a toll credit for non-Federal share of a project's cost.

Mr. Chairman, I include my statement for the Record.

Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to support my friend from Texas' amendment. In fact I offered this same amendment in Committee. The amendment would change the calculation of toll credits by basing them on the proportion of non-federal investment in toll projects.

Support of this amendment does not mean that you promote or support toll roads per se. But supporting this amendment does recognize that State Legislatures that have chosen to pursue tolling should be able to have access to toll credits to invest in transportation options, such as transit, bicycles, rail, and pedestrian infrastructure, as well as road maintenance.

Toll credits create flexibility in the federal aid program. Similar to the Programmatic Match provisions of the Surface Transportation Program, toll credits allow the expenditure of non-federal funds on one project to serve as the match on another project. The benefit of having toll credits is to enable either a highway or transit project to exchange a toll credit for non-federal share of a project's cost.

This amendment does not provide any additional money. It simply provides greater financial flexibility by allowing the use of federal funds in a state's apportionment. Without this flexibility, State DOT's will have a significantly diminished number of toll credits and will likely only focus on the growing demands for road maintenance.

My fellow members, if your state does tolling, you will benefit from this amendment. In my state, I have broad support from the Texas Department of Transportation, MPOs, local and state officials, and transit organizations.

Mr. Chairman, I urge you to support this amendment so that we can give States that have decided to toll more flexibility with toll credits so that they can invest in all transportation options.