Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I support the manager's amendment. It is a delicate balance which we have reached, and we need to pass it now.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains for the gentleman from Virginia?

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield myself 4 minutes.

We have waited patiently for the gentleman to arrive, and recognize that he has, like all of us, many demands on his time. I am glad the gentleman is here to offer his amendment, and we understand the problems in this committee of Northern Virginia, which the gentleman so ably represents.

In the fashioning of TEA-21, along with the gentleman's Senator, Senator Warner, and former Chairman Shuster, we supported the Wilson Bridge, which all of America contributed out of the Highway Trust Fund over $900 million. This is the only bridge of its kind in the country to get that kind of special consideration. We recognize, and I have watched the growth of toll facilities in the Dulles access corridor. I understand those problems that this growth-bedeviled area has had to cope with.

However, there is a very serious problem here of low-income people living in an area distant from the job. My daughter worked at Jubilee Jobs in the Adams-Morgan area in D.C. placing people who came out of homeless shelters, people who had just been released from prison, people who, through, in many cases, no fault of their own, had just fallen through the welfare safety net. There were a number of jobs available for those people out at Dulles Airport, but they could not afford to drive. There is no public transportation for them to take to get out to Dulles Airport to match the person with the job. Their jobs went unanswered and people went jobless because of the cost of transportation.

In Chicago, Chicago experienced white flight to the suburbs. The suburbs needed people to perform work in stores, in homes, in facilities, hospitals, and nursing homes; but the workers were in the city. Chicago initiated a welfare-to-work program to provide compensation for those who would still live in their neighborhoods in the city, but provide the jobs in the suburbs. For every thousand jobs in the suburbs a $10 million economic benefit resulted.

Now, Chicago could set up a very simple process of matching the welfare workers, the welfare-level workers to the jobs and provide assistance to them. So can Virginia. So can other States. There is no need to say, oh, there is going to be a huge bureaucracy created. It is a very simple process. A person comes in and shows their immediate basis and applies for the assistance, applies for whatever designation is required, the FAST pass or the designation to get through the toll facility. It does not cost anything additional. And if there is a derogation of dollars to the toll facility, then the State in the public interest can make that up.

All we are saying in the legislation pending is that low-income people pay a higher percentage of their household income for transportation than other income groups, and tolling facilities should not drive people out of the job marketplace.

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

Mr. Chairman, the language in the bill just directs States to establish a program and procedures. All you have to do is issue a pass to the individuals based on their qualification as a low- income person and use the pass to get through the tolling facility. That is all we are saying.

Otherwise, those toll facilities produce Lexus lanes, produce Mercedes and Hummer lanes, who will whiz through while the poor folk cannot afford to get through. I know from personal experience. I have traveled around this country to areas where we have those problems, either some communities have responded by investing in transit systems so that low-income people, as in Sacramento, 3,200 low-income persons were able to use their transit system to get to jobs.

You are not doing that in Northern Virginia for various reasons. I concur with what the gentleman says, another $90 billion invested in transportation, as this committee introduced the bill in its original form, would take care of this problem. But we must insist on the committee position and defeat the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition. How much time remains for the gentleman from Texas?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

This amendment really crosses the line on tolling. I have always believed tolls are a bad idea, but if a State wants to do that and citizens want to subject themselves to toll facilities, that is their business.

But on the interstate highway system, we have a very effective financing mechanism through the Highway Trust Fund and through the national highway system. Again, the Highway Trust Fund supports construction of needed transportation facilities.

But to mix Federal funds with tolls is anathema to the idea of a publicly supported transportation system through our Highway Trust Fund and the user fee.

I could understand if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) were advocating and others were advocating tolls and toll-only facilities. But to cross the line and mix Highway Trust Fund dollars with toll funds to encourage building of toll facilities to indirect competition with toll-free highways, just does not make any sense at all.

In fact, there is an example in the State of California where a toll operator persuaded the State legislature to enact authority to build a toll facility but then prohibited the public sector from building additional capacity in the same corridor in the adjoining public roadway.

The toll was built; it did not work. It was on the verge of bankruptcy. At the same time, the State was ready to build additional lanes on the public facility. The toll operator took the State to court and prevailed against building the publicly-free facility, so the State wound up buying the toll facility and building additional lanes.

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

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

To push the idea of toll facilities in the direction of merging Federal highway trust fund dollars with toll dollars is just anathema to the whole concept of a publicly supported transportation network. We should not allow this type of initiative in tolling.

If Members want to have tolls, do it the old-fashioned way and use the toll dollars and create Lexus lanes and create Mercedes lanes, but do not use the public dollars to merge with the toll facility dollars and create a severe disparity and discrimination against publicly built toll facilities.

Remember the California example; that is what will happen here. We will have others of that nature. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings by which the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) was considered be vacated and the vote be put anew.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania has made a very strong case for the issue which he presents with this amendment, and we in the committee have worked with the gentleman and his staff to allow transit systems in urbanized areas to retain flexibility in the use of Federal transit formula funds, and I thought we had worked out throughout the development of TEA-LU the extension that the gentleman was seeking to extend the period of flexibility for urbanized areas to use Federal funds for operating assistance through this year, which is half the time before the next census.

More than 50 urbanized areas have been eligible to use their transit grants for operating expenses, but apparently the gentleman wants to go further than we agreed in our internal deliberations and discussions, and I think that it goes beyond the agreement that we reached in committee. For that reason, I cannot support it.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, certainly there is a concern among those metropolitan areas whose population has grown significantly since the 2000 Census, and they are seeking more flexibility for the use of funds on their Federal transit formula grant to use those dollars for operating assistance. But to extend the flexibility beyond the 5 years, as we have provided in TEA-LU, would undermine the statutory formulas.

It might benefit some areas, the pending amendment might benefit some areas, but would inflict a fairness issue upon other areas, to indicate that statutory formula that we use to apportion funds using most recent census data is no longer applicable for a certain area.

The amendment as offered would create confusion and would create unfairness among users, among other transit systems across the country.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is correct. I said that at the very outset. I made it very clear we extended it through 2005. That was our understanding. That is what I thought was the agreement we reached and the compromise, that we would go through 2005. Then you just have a few more years until the next census, and then the issue would be resolved for all of the country and not just a few areas.

So I urge defeat of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains of the gentleman from Texas?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, on the face of it, who could object to sound science, objective science? That is what science should be. But the thrust of this amendment is not in the words of the amendment. They are not going to get us to that point. The language says, in considering assessment of risks to human health and the environment, such an assessment, where an assessment concerns the evaluation of multiple studies, shall include the best available science and description of the weight of the scientific evidence. And further on, in subsection 2, a description of the weight. That is not objectivity. That is totally subjective. To start considering the weight of scientific evidence, that is not a scientific term in and of itself.

So I am all for science and for good science, but this language is going to obfuscate the evaluation of risks and open the door of opportunity for more lawsuits over what is meant by weight, multiple studies, available science. I think this goes directly in the opposite direction of the purpose of the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire of the Chairman how much time remains on the side of the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).

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

Mr. Chairman, our side has the right to close. I await the arguments on the part of the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

Let me first make it clear that the language of this amendment was not worked out with staff on our side, nor by the majority staff. I represent on this issue the bipartisan position of the committee in opposition.

We have seen the dangers of manipulated science. The tobacco industry produced study after study trashing the impact of smoking and secondhand smoke, only to be overturned in case after case and by Federal Government health agencies. This year, we have seen the dangers of industry-funded studies on Vioxx and Celebrex, and those two drugs have been withdrawn. Was that done on the basis of weight of evidence? Such a vague and subjective standard.

Mr. Chairman, the National Academy of Sciences is the authority that we frequently turn to in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and in the transportation community. They oversee transportation environmental research. They, the National Academy of Sciences, truly are the gold standard. They do not play around the edges with such vague terms as ``weight of evidence.'' They evaluate the evidence. They make scientific judgments. They come to good science-based conclusions. That is where we ought to go; and if the gentleman were serious about this issue of getting very objective scientific evidence to bear on environmental issues of health or environment, subject it to review of the National Academy of Sciences. That would be standard enough for us. We would let it ride at that. But as it stands, I must oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) raises a very serious matter, modifying the Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement provisions in current law and the formula.

The manner in which the gentleman proposes to do this is a little more complicated than I think is appropriate to resolve in amendment form on the floor. But I, in cooperation with the chairman of the full committee, believe we can work this out with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) as we proceed to conference.

If the gentleman is inclined to withdraw the amendment, having given a very thoughtful discussion of it, I believe as we did last year in the effort to reach a bill which we ultimately did not, not for this reason but for other reasons, that we can work this matter out.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman that we will reach in every good faith a resolution to this matter.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I affirm my willingness to work with the gentleman and the chairman to resolve this matter as we proceed to conference on withdrawal of the amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment gets to the guts of the bill that we are presenting to the House today. A similar amendment, maybe even the exact language of this amendment, was overwhelmingly defeated last year by a vote of 367 to 60. The intent of the amendment is simply to reduce a State's apportionment under the Surface Transportation Program dollar for dollar by the authorizations that Members of that State receive for highways and transit high-priority projects and require the Secretary to use a revised apportionment that includes the offset in determining the State's rate of return.

The amendment punishes States that do well in high-priority projects and transit new starts and redistributes those dollars elsewhere. That is contrary to the entire intent of this legislation. Members should have a say in the distribution of the dollars under this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, we reached a delicate balance in extensive negotiation between the majority and minority, between the leadership in a formula that is spelled out in the manager's amendment that accomplishes the goal in real terms of achieving 92.6 percent return for all States.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on my side?

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

The chairman of the full committee has explained the issue very well. The point of inviting Members to submit for designation by the committee projects of great significance within their districts acknowledges the reality that not all wisdom in investing transportation dollars resides in State DOTs.

That is why the Federal Highway Administration does not make these decisions. The dollars go from the Highway Trust Fund through the Federal Highway Administration out to the States to make decisions and when a road or a bridge is not built or improved, or a transit system investment is not made, our constituents come to us, Members of Congress, you are out there in Washington, you vote on this legislation, you vote for the Highway Trust Fund, you set up the policies by which those dollars are invested, and we are not getting the investment that we need. So they come to us, and it is for us to serve as a correction to State DOTs, and that is what we do in this process.

Now, in including Member high-priority projects in the minimum guarantee, we have reached the 92.6 percent return on equity to the States, resolving the issue and the problem the gentleman from Arizona has raised.

I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman has made his case. Our side has made the case, and we have the right to close, and I assure the gentleman from Arizona that the interests of the State of Arizona are well cared for in this legislation and of all the States and the agreement that is embodied in the manager's amendment was reached at the very highest levels of policy within this body and on the majority side, and we have to reject the gentleman's amendment, and I would, in fact, urge him to withdraw the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to vacate the proceedings by which a recorded vote was requested on the Barton amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar, as well as the subcommittee leadership for their hard work in crafting the underlying legislation. However, I offer my support for the manager's amendment that seeks to incorporate very important initiatives that were contained in some of the amendments that were made in order by the Committee on Rules.

While the underlying bill before us proposes to provide $620 million for some 175 high priority projects in the State of Texas, there remain issues that will pose significant problems for Houston and for Texas unless this body offers its commitment to address in the future.

Toll credits are a significant resource for transit providers because they can use them in lieu of obtaining a Federal match--thereby greatly expediting the development of major projects that serve the communities. This amendment will cripple the value of the toll credit program.

Without the revenue from toll credits, Texas will have less funding for the reduction of congestion and the improvement of air quality. In reducing an otherwise viable revenue stream, this amendment would restrict local governments like Houston from choosing the best tool to respond to local conditions and priorities. I would have voted against the amendment that would prohibit the tolling of new interstates, including the I-69 Corridor, which lacks an alternate source of financing.

I ask that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure continue its efforts to provide funds to complete the Interstate 69 Corridor. The termination of the Interstate Program in 1995 left no mechanism to finish the Nation's few remaining incomplete Interstates such as I-69. Currently, there is no program to fund major projects which benefit the Nation as a whole but whose costs exceed States' apportioned funds. Based on these needs, I ask my colleagues to include the National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program and the Projects of National and Regional Significance provisions in the bill underlying today. Furthermore, I ask that the committee include them at a funding level equal to those included in H.R. 3550.

The Greater Houston area is subdivided into 6 counties: Chambers, Fort Bend, Liberty, Montgomery, Waller, and my District, Harris. Harris County contains the city of Houston and the largest concentration of people. In the year 2000, approximately 3.5 million people lived in Harris County alone--by far the most populous area. Over the next 20 years, the population of the Houston region will continue to grow.

The historic Fourth Ward in Houston is long overdue for major transportation improvements. Within the underlying bill we have before us today are projects that propose to make critical improvements to the Main Street Corridor. The Fourth Ward emerged as Houston's most prominent African-American neighborhood when thousands of freed slaves flooded into the city after emancipation. These newcomers settled on the fringes of the Third, Fifth, and Fourth wards. The Freedmentown area north of San Felipe and the streets west of downtown not only attracted the largest number of the new black residents but also housed the first black churches, schools, and political organizations. Several factors combined to facilitate the subsequent growth of the Fourth Ward's black community. I would ask that my colleagues take these requests under strong consideration after passage and leading into the conference report.

Improvements to Houston's and Texas' infrastructure will be the priority for me and for my colleagues. Statistically, Houstonians travel more miles per day than there are miles between the earth and the sun. The distance between the earth and the sun is about 93 million miles. Houstonians drive about 156 million miles per day.

The manager's amendment proposes key technical and program improvements to the underlying bill language. In particular, I support the changes to the calculation of ``Revenue Aligned Budget Authority,'' RABA; re-establishment of budgetary firewalls for highways and transit programs; reauthorization of the Swift Rail Act at $100 million per year, title IX of the bill; and extension of revenue provisions approved by the Ways and Means Committee.

Moreover, I support the improvements to the bill proposed in the manager's amendment. In particular, due to the tremendous bipartisan efforts of my colleagues, the amendment now includes language to guarantee that TEA 21's 90.5 percent minimum guarantee is protected, with a scope defined as no less than 92.6 percent of the highway program funds in the bill. This is a significant improvement over the bill passed by the House last year. I thank the distinguished majority leader for his work in ensuring that this measure will protect these provisions, allowing the House to move into conference in a stronger negotiating position toward achieving a higher MG above 90.5 percent. The manager's amendment makes this a better bill for Houstonians and for Texans.

I would like to offer my support for the amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Virginia that will ensure that tolls are applied equally to all users of toll facilities. This amendment would eliminate language in the underlying bill that requires lower tolls to be charged to low income drivers. Since the administration of differential tolls may be challenging for our existing and future toll authorities, this amendment will make important adjustments to the underlying bill.

Secondly, I support the Burgess amendment, which would change the calculation for transportation development credits to ensure that Texas and other States with toll facilities are able to take full advantage of these credits for the benefit of our transit, highway, and highway safety programs. This proposal is vital to the provision of a pro rata calculation of the credits so that we are not penalized for using Federal dollars in our transportation development projects. I support this amendment and ask that my colleagues join me as the Gentleman brings this proposal to the floor.

Furthermore, I support the proposal of Mr. Pitts that would provide a temporary transition period for transit entities, including three in Texas, that, under the most recent census, are now subject to the over 200,000 population prohibition on the use of transit formula dollars for operating expenses. The Pitts amendment would allow those small transit entities in this new situation to use up to 50 percent of their formula funds for operating expenses for fiscal years 2005 through 2007 and up to 25 percent of the formula funds for operating expenses in fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

In addition, I join my colleague from Texas, Mr. Barton in the initiative of his amendment to require studies and assessments of risks to human health or the environment to use sound and objective scientific practices.

Due to the short time allotment given to the floor debate on this measure, I was unable to engage the distinguished ranking member from Minnesota in a colloquy. I wanted to discuss two very specific and very significant issues that relate not only to Houston, but to Texas and many other States that have developing infrastructure and economic cores.

I would have asked the ranking member for his assistance in maintaining the issues that I underscore here as priorities as he and his fellow conferees move closer to finalizing negotiations on this measure. These issues speak to (1) the need for increased transit- related funding in future authorizing and appropriating measures, and (2) the need to maintain Federal oversight of the way in which States and localities regulate the flow of interstate traffic. The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, METRO, is the agency charged with the public transportation and transit needs. METRO has worked over the past 2 years to create a long-range plan for mass transit in the Houston area. After having worked with the community to receive input, the METRO board of directors adopted a blue-print for its long-range plan called ``METRO Solutions.''

The METRO Solutions plan includes: (1) 50 percent increase in METRO's bus service, including approximately 44 new local, signature express, express, and Park & Ride bus routes, (2) nine new Transit Centers and nine new Park & Ride lots, as well as expansion and upgrading existing facilities, (3) expansion of the METRO Rail line and commuter line components, including an overall plan with 72.8 miles of rail, and (4) extension of the payments to local governments for street and other mobility improvements for five additional years, 2010-2014. Texas has a transportation code and it is authorized to act in this field of local government through METRO.

I believe that long-term and comprehensive projects such as that of Houston METRO should be given full Federal support? I would add that the authorization process should allow for innovative financing options to allow projects such as METRO's Advance Transit Plan, ATP, and METRO Solutions.

I would ask that the appropriators and authorizers remain open-minded in crafting measures such as H.R. 3 to the transit needs that exist in areas like Houston, the fourth largest city in the Nation. The distinguished majority leader has been cited as advocating the need for more innovative financing to build infrastructure and to foster economic activity.

Given the situation that Houston METRO and other similar entities face with administrative delays that stem from a very lengthy funding process, I ask that our colleagues follow

the leadership of the majority leader from Texas.

We should go to conference and continue to work with the committee to maintain the need for innovative financing for major transit infrastructure.

We should remain committed to maintaining the need for financing options for transit projects that promise to foster economic activity as a priority. Also, with respect to the issue of the need to maintain Federal oversight of the way in which States and localities regulate the flow of interstate traffic, a program called ``SAFE Clear'' has been initiated in the city of Houston and is in the city ordinance.

I congratulate the mayor and city council on the vigorous work that its Office of Mobility has done to improve transportation throughout the city of Houston and remain eager to collaborate with them to facilitate this endeavor from the Federal level.

However, I must make my colleagues aware that, through feedback that I have received from my constituents, the program has disproportionately affected certain groups of motorists, particularly those of lower socio-economic status and those who are or who primarily transport the elderly. While the proposed improvements to the ordinance that provide a ``free tow'' could serve our goals well, motorists who do not qualify for a ``free tow'' will possibly suffer from the disparate effects of the ordinance complained of by constituents.

I ask that the Transportation Conference ensure that provisions are included in this measure and measures in the future that maintain Federal oversight over the regulation of interstate travel. The potentially disparate overall effect of the ordinance merits further analysis, research, and oversight.

I hope we will continue to provide oversight over programs such as this through the legislation that is crafted in committee.

Mr. Chairman, for the foregoing reasons, I support the drafters of this legislation for their efforts to fund priority projects and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the transportation bill that our distinguished committee leadership worked for so long and so hard to bring to the Floor this week. I commend them on a tremendous job in crafting a bill that works within such title fiscal constraints, yet still manages to focus on so many of our transportation priorities. I want to particularly thank the Committee on Rules for making the Pascrell/Menendez/LoBiondo pay to play reform amendment in order.

I appreciate the hard work of the distinguished ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), who has been a strong supporter of our amendment. I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for his strong comments in support of the amendment as well.

Like many here, I had hoped that there would be a lot more money in this bill. As a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I know how important transportation investment is for the good of the Nation as a whole. As the representative of the 13th District of New

Jersey, which is densely packed with almost every transportation mode imaginable, I know firsthand how important this investment is for the well-being of the people in our community because transportation is more than about getting from one place to another.

The money we spend in this bill will create jobs, stimulate new businesses, revitalize neighborhoods, reduce congestion, clean our air and make us more secure. That is why I am disappointed that we have been forced to adhere to an unnecessary low level of funding the administration has forced upon us.

Those of us in the New Jersey-New York metropolitan area learned on September 11 how important it is to have a multiplicity of transportation modes. When the bridges and tunnels out of Manhattan were closed, it was ferries that allowed people to evacuate the city to New Jersey. When the airports were closed, it was rail service that allowed people to travel across the country. September 11 showed us that the national security value of making a strong investment in multiple modes of transportation is necessary.

Those of us from New Jersey know particularly well how desperately we need the money in this bill. We are the most densely populated State in the Nation with very old highways that are desperately in need of repair; 71 percent of our major roads are in either poor or mediocre condition. Over 36 percent of our highway bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, far above the national average. And despite being the fifth smallest State, we are the 11th most traveled on our highways.

These miles take a toll on our environment. Every county in the State has unhealthy levels of ozone, and over half of the counties have dangerous levels of airborne soot. By providing enhanced funding for public transportation and other pollution control measures, this bill will help to clean our air.

One of the other problems we have in New Jersey is with pay to play. That is a process by which contributions, often very large contributions, are offered to politicians and State officials with the hope of being able to gain a government contract. It is in my mind a very corrupting practice and severely undermines the trust and credibility of the government.

What my colleagues and I from New Jersey are trying to do is change the nature of that process. Now, this is not merely an issue for New Jersey. This is an issue for any State that hopes it can strike a blow for clean government by limiting such a corrupting influence. And the issue is simply about the right of any State, of any State, to take the steps it needs to maintain the trust of its people. Nothing in what we are trying to do would force any State to enact a pay to play reform law. Nothing in our amendment would alter the competitive bidding process one bit.

The amendment strictly conforms to the ideals behind the current Federal highway contracting statute which is to ensure fairness and integrity in the awarding of public contracts.

I for one am surprised that we even need this amendment at all. For 50 years, Section 441(c) of Title 2 in the U.S. Code has banned political contributions from Federal contractors. The Federal government clearly recognizes the corrupting influence of pay to play and has taken steps to control it, steps that the Federal Highway Administration now says that New Jersey is not allowed to take on its own.

Clearly, the Federal Government recognizes that there are situations where merely looking for the lowest bidder is not the best way to serve the public interest.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has also enacted its own pay to play protection regulation, Rule G-37, which is even stronger than the Federal statute in Section 441. Brokers and municipal security dealers are forbidden from making political contributions to any official who issues municipal securities for 2 years before any business can be transacted. The rule was challenged and upheld in Federal court. Clearly, the SEC recognized and the courts agreed that restricting campaign contributions by people who are looking to do business with government is in the public interest and helps maintain the public trust.

I have heard some arguments that the problem with this amendment is that it would open the flood gates. Once we add a restriction about campaign contributions to highway contracting, this argument goes, we will not know where to stop. I strongly disagree.

First of all, New Jersey's Pay to Play Reform Act is not a highway issue. It only became one when the Federal Highway Administration, which is apparently not very concerned with Section 441 of the Federal law, decided to make it one by withholding New Jersey's highway financing.

Second, we already put a number of restrictions on highway contracting and procurement in Federal law. We give, for example, priority to minority-owned businesses, veteran-owned businesses, women- owned businesses, businesses owned by Native Americans or the disabled. We do these things because they are right to do and because they serve a social good. Limiting campaign contributions by prospective contractors is also a social good. It preserves the integrity of the government. It preserves the trust of the public in the contracting process. And it will very likely save the government money by lowering the cost of contracts.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is simple. It is straightforward, and it is fair. It is also bipartisan and supported by a broad range of good government groups, such as Common Cause, the Center of Civic Responsibility, and Democracy 21.

I urge my colleagues, when it comes time, to pass the Pascrell/ Menendez/LoBiondo amendments and the underlying bill so we can protect the rights of the States and allow them to combat corruption as they see fit. This will apply only to those States that, number one, choose to have such legislation for their States, and it will only apply to office holders in their States of a State nature.

I do not think the Federal Government should be telling the States that they cannot do that to preserve the trust and integrity of the contracting process in their States.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his gracious amount of time.

Mr. Chairman, three quick points. This does not require any State to do anything. It simply allows a State to perform a reform in the context of contracting. We recognize this already under Federal law in section 441 of the Federal highway bill. The SEC has done the same type of thing in its context. No State should be prohibited from enacting reforms as it relates to improving the integrity of public contracting in their State. It will not apply to any Federal officeholder, but it will allow States ultimately to pursue reforms in the context of contracting and the integrity of its process.

We should support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar, as well as the Subcommittee leadership for their hard work in crafting the underlying legislation. However, I offer my support for the Manager's Amendment that seeks to incorporate very important initiatives that were contained in some of the amendments that were made in order by the Committee on Rules.

While the underlying bill before us proposes to provide $620 million for some 175 high priority projects in the State of Texas, there remain issues that will pose significant problems for Houston and for Texas unless this body offers its commitment to address in the future.

Toll credits are a significant resource for transit providers because they can use them in lieu of obtaining a Federal match--thereby greatly expediting the development of major projects that serve the communities. This amendment will cripple the value of the toll credit program.

Without the revenue from toll credits, Texas will have less funding for the reduction of congestion and the improvement of air quality. In reducing an otherwise viable revenue stream, this amendment would restrict local governments like Houston from choosing the best tool to respond to local conditions and priorities. I would have voted against the amendment that would prohibit the tolling of new interstates, including the I-69 Corridor, which lacks an alternate source of financing.

I ask that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure continue its efforts to provide funds to complete the Interstate 69 Corridor. The termination of the Interstate Program in 1995 left no mechanism to finish the nation's few remaining incomplete Interstates such as I-69. Currently, there is no program to fund major projects which benefit the nation as a whole but whose costs exceed states' apportioned funds. Based on these needs, I ask my colleagues to include the National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program and the Projects of National and Regional Significance provisions in the bill underlying today. Furthermore, I ask that the Committee include them at a funding level equal to those included in H.R. 3550.

The Manager's Amendment proposes key technical and program improvements to the underlying bill language. In particular, I support the changes to the calculation of ``Revenue Aligned Budget Authority'' (RABA''; re-establishment of budgetary firewalls for highways and transit programs; reauthorization of the Swift Rail Act at $100 million per year (title IX of the bill); and extension of revenue provisions approved by the Ways and Means Committee.

Moreover, I support the improvements to the bill proposed in the Manager's amendment. In particular, due to the tremendous bipartisan efforts of my colleagues, the amendment now includes language to guarantee that TEA 21's 90.5 percent Minimum Guarantee is protected, with a scope defined as no less than 92.6 percent of the highway program funds in the bill. This is a significant improvement over the bill passed by the House last year. I thank the distinguished Majority Leader for his work in ensuring that this measure will protect these provisions, allowing the House to move into conference in a stronger negotiating position toward achieving a higher MG above 90.5 percent. The Manager's Amendment makes this a better bill for Houstonians and for Texans.

I would like to offer my support for the amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Virginia that will ensure that tolls are applied equally to all users of toll facilities. This amendment would eliminate language in the underlying bill that requires lower tolls to be charged to low income drivers. Since the administration of differential tolls may be challenging for our existing and future toll authorities, this amendment will make important adjustments to the underlying bill.

Secondly, I support the Burgess Amendment, which would change the calculation for transportation development credits to ensure that Texas and other states with toll facilities are able to take full advantage of these credits for the benefit of our transit, highway, and highway safety programs. This proposal is vital to the provision of a pro rata calculation of the credits so that we are not penalized for using Federal dollars in our transportation development projects. I support this amendment and ask that my colleagues join me as the Gentleman brings this proposal to the floor.

Furthermore, I support the proposal of Mr. Pitts that would provide a temporary transition period for transit entities (including three in Texas) that, under the most recent Census, are now subject to the over 200,000 population prohibition on the use of transit formula dollars for operating expenses. The Pitts amendment would allow those small transit entities in this new situation to use up to 50 percent of their formula funds for operating expenses for FYs 2005 through 2007 and up to 25 percent of the formula funds for operating expenses in FYs 2008 and 2009.

In addition, I join my colleague from Texas, Mr. Barton in the initiative of his amendment to require studies and assessments of risks to human health or the environment to use sound and objective scientific practices.

Mr. Chairman, for the foregoing reasons, I support the Manager's Amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose the Davis of Virginia amendment to TEA-LU, which would remove the requirement that toll rates on high occupancy toll lanes be differentiated for low income drivers. I find it unfortunate that Members of this body would offer amendments to this legislation that effectively say that lower income individuals are on the same financial footing as those who are in upper income brackets.

The fact is that we as Americans have decided that those who make less, share less of the burden to bring revenue into our local, State, and Federal government. Indeed, we all know that we are taxed based on our income and value of our possessions. In the same vein, tolls that will go towards paying for public transportation projects, should have some variability based on the income of drivers. This principle is applied throughout our economic practices and it is a fair principle because we recognize that unduly burdening lower income individuals will only weaken our national economy.

The fact is that lower income Americans depend on their automobiles the same way higher income Americans do. Lower income Americans often need their cars to reach jobs they can't otherwise reach through public transportation. They use their cars to transport their families and take part in commerce that would otherwise be unavailable to them without their own private transportation. However, if we insist on making lower income drivers pay the same tolls as higher income drivers then we make the cost of transportation more prohibitive for lower income Americans. These drivers already have to deal with the soaring costs of fuel and the high premiums they pay to maintain car insurance. If we also burden them with high tolls then we will keep them from achieving their potential and we can only hurt our overall society that benefits from lower unemployment and increased commerce.

I urge the Members of this body to reject this amendment because it only seeks to create a larger burden upon lower income Americans. We must all be given a chance to achieve the American Dream and this dream is made harder for too many lower class Americans when we unfairly raise the level of their tolls.

Mr. Speaker, in a letter that went from Suzanne Novak on behalf of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the honorary chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member, she wrote in that letter in support of the Federal Government supporting States and being very specific about the bidding laws in contracting to respond to the collusion or the possibilities of collusion that have existed, I can assure my colleagues, not only in the State of New Jersey.

She wrote this: ``Several recent scandals regarding government contracting in New Jersey prompted New Jersey to establish a criterion of responsibility for government contracting which prohibited the State from contracting with an entity that has contributed to a candidate for or holder of the office of Governor, or to any State or county political party committee, within certain time frames. The executive ``order of the Governor'' ``explicitly stated that `the growing infusion of funds donated by business entities into the political process at all level of government has generated widespread cynicism among the public that special interest groups are ``buying'' favors from elected officeholders.' ''

Mr. Speaker, the courts have recognized that contributions from government contractors present a severe risk of engendering corruption, the appearance of corruption and, thus, have generally upheld pay-to- play contribution bans, and this is what this amendment is all about. It is a bipartisan amendment to reform government, to help government clean up its act. We have similar laws on the Federal books about contracting and bidding. We want to remove cynicism from the public about when the government does business that there is proper conditions that will be implemented to make sure that it is done according to the law.

Blount v. the SEC was a perfect example. The Securities and Exchange Commission made it very clear that if you were going to do some bonding work, that if you give a political contribution to the entity beforehand, that is rather suspect. So let us remove that possibility. There is no doubt, if we do not allow the States to do what the Federal Government has on the books, how are we going to justify that?

This is a win-win situation. Neither party is the source of corruption and neither party is privy to virtue; let us accept that. Let us also accept that this is a bipartisan amendment, introduced in good faith, so that each of the parties, if you will, look good. Not only talk the talk but take that extra step to clean up their own acts. How can we in this House not permit or allow each of the States to provide for cleaner governments?

This is reality. The Federal law, the court cases have backed up this effort. There is no reason under the sun. This is bipartisan. It will help both parties and it will reduce the cynicism that exists in many, many areas of the public.

So, Mr. Speaker, this great H.R. 3, the Transportation Equity Act, we have worked on it a long time. I have saluted both the Chair, as well as the ranking member. I have not heard one cogent argument as to why we should not pass and allow States to reform their own act and clean up their own acts.

One criticism I heard is that this is going to open up a Pandora's box. The Federal Government has rules on the books already. Are we going to tell the Federal Government, you have opened up a Pandora's box because you are trying to implement clean-government rules? That is absurd. Give me one legal reason why this amendment should not only be in order, which it is, but it should not be both sides of the aisle supportive. Give me one good legal reason.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

The so-called ``pay-to-play'' restrictions, Mr. Chairman, enacted in many States like Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, South Carolina, Kentucky and West Virginia, for instance, there is a threat which is real; and whether it is real or whether it is apparent, we need to stamp out corruption. We have come to an agreement in the State of New Jersey. We have come to bipartisan support of an attempt by both sides of the aisle to end corruption as not only we know it because neither party is privy to virtue, neither State is privy to corruption.

What we are trying to do here is look at what is the result of large political contributions from contractors who try to influence the awarding of public contracts. Mr. Chairman, there is Federal precedent for this, and I would venture to say that we all in this Chamber should be reading what that precedent is. This does not open up a Pandora's box. This is simply providing States the ability to clean up their own act, to reform their own government, and to give those people an opportunity to bid in a more apparent, transparent process.

Mr. Chairman, the Federal Highway Administration argued that the New Jersey order violated section 112 of title XXIII, a provision dealing with bid-letting. This amendment intends to support what New Jersey has attempted to do to open up the bid process, not to close it down, not to shrink it, but rather to expand it so that there is more transparency.

Why should the Federal Government stop those States who want to end the process of corruption in their contract-letting? Why should this Federal Government, which has our own rules, the SEC was a perfect example of this just a few years ago, that if you are going to contribute, then you need to stay out of the process of bidding. This passed in the New Jersey Assembly 78-0. It passed in the New Jersey Senate 34-0. It is bipartisan.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the Pascrell- Menendez-LoBiondo amendment only impacts States that choose to pass a pay-to-play reform law. This is a win-win for both sides. I cannot emphasize that enough. How many times have we come to this Chamber when we try to get it over on the other side? That is natural in politics.

This is a win-win for both sides, not only in New Jersey but throughout the country. I ask for the support of this body. I think this is good legislation, I think the amendment makes sense, and it is backed up by Federal law.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).