French Colonial Heritage National Historic Site Study Act of 2005

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines, for yielding me this time.

Here we are again, hopefully, to the Floor with what I fervently hope will not result in yet another extension of current law for our surface transportation program. That we do not have in place a 5-year or 6-year extension of our surface transportation programs is certainly not attributable to the Members of this Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Both sides of the aisle have worked vigorously, Mr. Chairman, to craft a bill that meets the needs of America's reliance upon our highway and transit systems to move people and goods efficiently and effectively in America.

The very first version of this bill was introduced in the fall of 2003, in October, at $375 billion, the investment that the Department of Transportation recommended to the Congress and to the administration that the Nation needed to invest over the next 6 years, following on TEA-21, to address the needs of pavement condition, congestion and safety across America. We took them at their word. Together, we crafted a bill that reflected the $375 billion investment, and together, we introduced that bill under the leadership of our chairman, the gentleman from Alaska.

At the time we introduced that bill, gasoline was selling at $1.34 a gallon. Today, it is well over $2.04 across the Nation. Oil will soon be selling at $60 a barrel, according to current analysts' reports, and the price of gas will go higher. We are not getting any of the benefit of that increase in pricing here in America in our highway transit programs. The dollars are going overseas.

In an age in which we are so concerned about outsourcing of American jobs to low-wage countries, the one place that jobs are not outsourced is on our highway and transit program; the highway that is built in front of your

home, in your community, between communities, the transit systems that are built are built with American labor and American materials. We require American steel to go in the Federal highway program and into the transit program. We have strengthened the Buy America provisions in this legislation and that have existed since 1982.

You know, you cannot build a highway in Shanghai and put it in place in Peoria. It's put in place in America with American labor. Those are American jobs. We created 1,300,000 net new jobs in TEA-21, and with a $375 billion investment over the next 6 years, we would create 2 million net new jobs and $291 billion of total related net new economic activity in America.

But we are not here debating that bill, because the economic gurus downtown at the White House said, oh no, that is way too much. They do not understand this comes out of the Highway Trust Fund. It is a pay- as-you-go system. American drivers are paying for this system. It is the most successful initiative we have had, except for Social Security, in our whole government structure. Since 1956, the Highway Trust Fund invests your dollars with your purchase at the pump, and you drive away on good roads. It is just that simple. And this committee has been faithful and true to that principle since 1956, going on 50 years.

But when we got that message that, oh no, that is not the number, we scaled our bill back; you did not hear any partisan bickering. What you saw was bipartisan cooperation. We brought a much lower bill to the floor, the Transportation Equity Act, a Legacy for Users, TEA-LU, and we took it through this House to the conference, where it stalled again over the level of investment that we need to make in America's transportation future. And it could not be resolved all the way through and up to the election, nor in the lame duck session afterward. So we are here again to make that effort.

Now, in the committee, we have agreed on the structure of the legislation, on the way in which those dollars are going to be invested, the programs, the allocated and allotted programs, the apportioned programs, and we bring to this body good investment in the future of transportation in America.

In safety alone, we invest $6 billion in the future of safe roads in America. In 1956, when the Highway Trust Fund was created and the interstate highway program launched, the projections were, if America did not move to a much safer highway system, a divided access controlled superhighway program, we would be killing 110,000 a year on America's roads. And because of the interstate highway, we are saving well over 50,000 lives a year.

We need to do better, however, and we can and will do better with the investments we are making in this legislation. For example, the $550 million investment in rural road safety. Forty-three percent of America's fatalities occur on rural roads. In our State of Minnesota, half of those fatalities are people from the metropolitan area driving in rural Minnesota who are killed on unsafe rural roads.

We need to make the investments to improve the quality of safety on our rural road system as well as in urban-suburban areas. We do that in this legislation. We make the right investments.

We need to move this bill forward, get it through this House. Unfortunately, we are delayed. And while discussions continue and negotiations continue on a term that is a term of art, not a term of law, over the scope and the percentage return on investment each State perceives it gets back from the Federal Highway Trust Fund, I hope that will be resolved today, and we can move on with the manager's amendment and settle the issue and go to conference.

Our chairman, the gentleman from Alaska, has led us through political storms over this issue. He has been a steady hand at the helm, and I applaud his leadership and his firmness. I hope that we will resolve this matter expeditiously, bring the manager's amendment to the floor and then proceed to conference with the Senate.

This is a tight time frame. Current law expires the end of May. The Senate is not expected, the other body, forgive me, is not expected to take up their version of the bill until after the Easter recess. That would mean mid April before we even get to conference. That leaves a month or so to negotiate all the differences in policy between the two bills. I certainly do not relish the prospect of the two of us coming back to the House floor sometime in May and saying, sorry, we cannot get there, we have to have another extension of current law.

We need to move ahead now. The Sand & Gravel Institute is reporting 43 percent unemployment among their membership because States are not letting long-term contracts. The Concrete Pavement Association, the Asphalt Pavement Association are all reporting unemployment levels in excess of 40 percent among their members because States are not letting long-term contracts. We can settle that by getting this bill through the House, through conference, and to the President for signature. Even at this lower level of $284 billion, that will mean a significant advancement in the cause of transportation, in jobs, in economic vitality and productivity in America.

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

I have been advised that the administration has again sent a statement of administration policy drawing a line, the familiar term is drawing a line in the sand, but in the context in which we are discussing I would say a line in the asphalt or a line in the concrete. I hope it is wet concrete, that ``should the obligation or net authorization levels in the final bill exceed $283.9 billion, the President's senior advisors would recommend he veto the bill.''

I am not quite clear who senior advisors are. We have not heard from the Secretary of Transportation. I thought he was a senior adviser. He has not said anything about this. He has not sent any message up here. Who are these shadowy figures? What is the $283.9 billion, not 284? Is this the basement version, the discount version of transportation? So we just cannot squeak over 283.9?

That is a magical number picked out of thin air. There is no justification for this number. We can invest more. The Highway Trust Fund will support more. Do not take it on my word; I have only been doing this for 40 years, but do not take my word. Take the Congressional Budget Office. If TEA-LU provides $283.9 billion, the Highway Trust Fund balance will be $17.5 billion in 5 years. That is $7.5 billion in highway account balances and a $10 billion surplus in the transit account.

We are not being honest with the American public. We tell them: You buy the gas, you pay the tax, it goes into the trust, and we build the roads, we build the transit systems.

Now, last year, in the course of the campaign, a trucker in Missouri asked President Bush, ``My family is involved in trucking here in Missouri, and I was wondering what you, as President, could do with Federal money to upgrade our highways? Our trucks are falling apart because our highways are falling apart.''

The President said, ``Yes. I appreciate that. We are in the midst of a discussion on a highway bill. There will be a highway bill, and just want to make sure that the highway bill honors the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund is set up so that we use the money from the gasoline tax and not general revenues.'' He understands it, ``and I think it's very important that we guard that aspect of trust, keep the trust of the Trust Fund.'' He understands that, too.

Well, why not, Mr. President, tell your senior advisors to accept what the committee is doing, move ahead, let us get over this $283.9? Let us get to $375 billion. Let us do what is right for America as both sides of the aisle in the House and the Senate have agreed last year and again this year that is where we need to go, not building a $17 billion surplus in the Highway Trust Fund.

We are failing to keep trust with the American people. That is what this is about. This is not a partisan issue. This is trust with the American people. That Highway Trust Fund is one of the most successful investments we have made, except for Social Security, in the history of this country. It is pay-as-you-go, keep faith with the American people. No other country has anything like it, and America is productive because our roadways are productive.

When we do not keep pace, when we allow congestion to suffocate movement of people and goods, then it costs America. UPS, for every 5- minute delay, costs them $40 million nationally.

We can fix that with the right investments that this committee has fashioned, and we need to move forward with a more robust bill.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that hopeful note. We are creeping in the right direction, at least.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very deep-seated feeling of opposition to this amendment. It has nothing to do with the gentleman, the offerer; but these series of attempts to undermine hours of service in the trucking sector, we went through a very extensive debate several years ago to create the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The idea was to establish within the Department of Transportation an entity whose role would be to examine the evidence in all of the many sectors of the economy, evaluate the needs for safety and then publish rules, not one rule but rules that would address each separate sector of the driving public on the economic side of driving.

The initial rules published by the Motor Carrier Safety Administration were very complex, very difficult to understand, and raised a great deal of animosity. They went back and redid the rule; and now because some sector did not get their way in the rulemaking process, they are coming to the Congress saying, fix it by law.

Look at what this proposal will do. Under the previous rule, truck drivers had only 8 hours off duty. But look at that 8 hours. We had extensive hearings on this subject. A driver comes home from his or her job, gets a shower, something to eat, maybe spends a little time with his or her family. When I was a student in college, I roomed at a house where the breadwinner was a long-distance truck driver. I saw this happening before my eyes. I see it happening to families throughout any congressional district. I have talked with those on the road. You get a little bit of time with family members, and maybe they get 5 hours of rest, and then they are back on the job again.

Unlike the inner-city bus drivers who work on regular schedules, a wide sector of the truck-driving public have irregular hours. They can work backward rotating shifts, 7 to 3 one week, 3 to 11, 11 to 7; and they never get consistent sleep. The human body has not changed in 50,000 years. We still need adequate rest.

The Department of Transportation has conducted numerous studies of fatigue among pilots, among locomotive engineers, among truck drivers, among bus operators, and found in every case they are not getting sufficient rest.

As each one of these cases comes up, it is we just have a little different situation here. Look under this amendment. A driver could start work at 8 in the morning and work until midnight with only 2 hours off, and then be expected to be back to work at 8 the next morning. It is not in the public interest. I do not care what the truck driver wants, to make a few extra bucks or get the time-and-a-half for overtime; that is not in the public interest. Somebody is going to die as a result of driver fatigue. We should not allow this chipping away at safety.

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

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

The legal effect of the gentleman's amendment, whether he understands it or has been wisely counseled, is exactly as I described it. A worker can start at 8 in the morning, work until midnight, have 2 hours off, and be called back at 8 the next morning. That is the legal effect of the words of this amendment. It is not in the public interest to put drivers on the road with so little sleep. That is what this is all about, about safety on our highways. Five thousand people a year die because of car-truck crashes, and more than half of those truck-car crashes are as a result of driver fatigue, truck driver fatigue. We must not exacerbate the problem, and we should defeat this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This is another example of chipping away at hours of service. We have already had a discussion in the course of debate on the previous amendment. We already have provided for exemptions for the agricultural community. Our committee held hearings, acknowledged the concerns, listened to the views of people on both sides of the issue, and we have included in the bill an exemption for the agricultural community with an exemption of a 100-air mile radius.

Now, I do not know what the argument is for a little bit more or a few more miles. There has not been any case made of what this dividing line is. In fact, 100 miles is a fairly arbitrary number in itself.

But, it may relate to the time it takes to drive 100 miles. That used to be the rule in railroading; that after 100 miles, the locomotive engineer was off duty and could get some rest. Well, maybe that is the issue here.

The fact is, we have made an adjustment in the context of this bill, and we recognize that there are unique seasonal considerations in the agricultural sector, and we have provided for that in this legislation. There is no need for this amendment. It is an excessive chipping away at safety.

I would just suggest to the gentleman, since we have already made an adjustment in H.R. 3, the underlying bill for the agricultural sector, that if the gentleman would be willing to withdraw the amendment, not press it to a vote, that we would then have the flexibility to work continuously, perhaps even as we get to the manager's amendment or as we get into conference to further hear the gentleman and his concerns and resolve them. I would make that offer to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that and give him my word and the chairman my word that we will work together and understand his concerns better, in more depth, and find a way to come to a resolution.

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

Now, in contrast to the previous amendment, which is somewhat technical and which I do believe we can work out an understanding as we come to a deeper grasp of the concerns of the offeror of the previous amendment, this is not a simple technical correction. This is a serious assault on the motor carrier safety rule. It goes beyond simply seasonal exemptions.

As we worked our way through the bill last year and again this year, we came to agreements on this hours of service issue. And we worked out language in H.R. 3 that provides exemption for 28,000 carriers. The pending amendment would include live animals, live fish, animal feed, products of animal origin, meat, fish, seafood, tobacco products, meat, logs, livestock, lumber products, processed food, beverages, 42,000 exemptions, 42,000 carriers who no longer would have to abide by the hours of services rules, within a 100 air-mile radius.

There is no justification for that. This is a quantitative and dangerously quantitative departure from the committee agreement, and must not be accepted.

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

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

The gentleman from Kansas is a very distinguished and decent and a well-thinking member of our committee. He has offered many thoughtful amendments. We have on the committee worked together to respect the unique needs in agriculture during planting time, harvest time, within a reasonable distance of the point of production and endpoint of distribution. The purpose of the language in the committee bill was to ensure that products grown and harvested get from the farm to market in timely fashion. I understand that. I have got large sectors of my congressional district that are intensely agricultural. We want that corn and soybeans to get to market in timely fashion. But in yielding a yard to the industry, they now want the whole ball field. The amendment goes way beyond what we understood. They are including processed products, processed foods, beverages. I asked the Department of Transportation Motor Carrier Safety Administration to tell me what is included, how many additional carriers? Forty-two thousand. What is the driving record of the carriers who would be covered by this amendment? They say they have a crash rate 20 percent higher than current agriculture exemption carriers. If we just limited this to the current agricultural sector provided in the exemption in our bill, we are fine with that, but this goes far beyond what is reasonable and responsible, whether intentioned or unintentioned. It is an assault upon safety in the form presented. I cannot accept it. We might find a way to work additionally with dropping out some of these pieces as we go forward in the manager's amendment or in conference, but in its current form, unless the gentleman chooses to withdraw it, I cannot accept it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I appreciate the statements made by the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska, very thoughtful presentation; but I just remind colleagues that when Congress enacted ISTEA in 1991, the legislation froze size and weight of large trucks, commercial motor vehicles. That is almost 14 years in the gentleman's State. CMVs can operate at a length of 65 feet. This amendment would raise it to 81 feet 6 inches.

The original rationale was to allow custom harvesters, those who have unique requirements, unique needs. I represent an agricultural area among the great diversity of my district, and there we do not have wheat but do have soybeans and corn. The idea was to allow the harvester to pull a combine and header, that is in the words of the amendment, exclusively in harvesting the wheat.

Now we see his amendment and it creeps, wheat, soybeans and milo. Each of these crops has different harvest times. So, if the length exemption is adopted, we will have these exemptions in place for much of the year.

They have had 14 years of working with this. This is the first time the issue has come before the committee. I do not understand what the need is except that they want to do it, but the language would allow these vehicles to operate basically on any route in Nebraska with a State or U.S. Route shield language. That is serious. That is placing serious safety problems on the Nation's roadway.

Try to pass one of those vehicles in a VW or Ford Pinto, if you still have one, or any other small vehicle. It is nerve-wracking and dangerous. I have tried it and I do not think it is safe; and as the figures show, 5,000 people a year die in car-truck crashes. We should not open the floodgates for rollback of a critical safety provision now in the regulatory process.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close. I am the only speaker. If the gentleman wishes to conclude his amendment, I will make the closing remarks.

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

It is true that other States have the right to operate longer-length vehicles. They were grandfathered in in 1991. I like being a grandfather but of very small children, not of very large trucks. Had I been in the leadership position in 1991, I did oppose it, I did object to it, but I was not in a leadership position to stop it, and we would have stopped it.

This is not a good move. This is not in the public interest. The adjoining States ought not to have longer vehicles; and if this amendment is done, then we might as well just throw the motor carrier safety rules away and let everybody drive longer vehicles, heavier vehicles at any time of the year and see further endangerment of safety on the roadways.

This well-intentioned amendment, it is certainly initiated by farmers who feel they are going to be able to move their goods to market at lower cost, more efficiently, but at great risk to life and to the public safety.

So I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Cox-Moran amendment that does protect owners of motor vehicles from predatory towing practices as both gentlemen have explained.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is certainly well-intentioned in his purpose of adding to our fund of surface transportation capacity, but this is the wrong way to do it. Toll is spelled T-A-X. And this proposition is opposed by AASHTO, by tolling authorities, and by various environmental organizations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

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

Again, I urge my colleagues to resist the siren call of tolls. It all sounds so simple: We will add more lanes; we will add more concrete and asphalt if all you will let us do is impose a toll on it.

The very first tolling facility in the western world, apart from that in ancient India, was King Edward III in England who allowed one of his knights the authority to build a bridge over the Thames in exchange for charging a fee to cross that bridge. It was to be temporary to cover the cost of the bridge. Four hundred years later, the British Parliament removed the toll from that bridge.

Tolls just do not go away. Once you put them on, they are there forever. To toll the interstate that we have already paid for is an insult to the drivers of this country. This is the wrong thing to do. We have provided reasonable tolling in this bill that is pending before us. It is sensible, but to go in this direction would impose tolls on those who can least afford it, would have widespread tolling on the interstate for which we have already paid. It does not guarantee that States will not contract away their right to build other roads in proximity to toll roads as happened in California. They got sued by the tolling authority.

This is the wrong thing to do. We have got a reasonable bill. What we really need, and I would invite my dear friend and good colleague from Minnesota, support the $375 billion bill that this committee introduced. That is the way to get more concrete and asphalt poured on America's roadways. Defeat the tolling amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague permitting me to speak on this rule.

I am pleased to follow my friend from Southern California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, because of one of the areas of concern I have with this bill, and I am hopeful that there will be some amendments made in order, speak specifically to some of the problems of Southern California.

I flew over recently the Alameda Corridor and looked at the problems down there. I have supported it in the past. But the area the gentleman speaks to is currently getting back over a billion dollars a year less from the highway fund than it puts in. There are some serious imbalances currently under our system.

There is a potential that this bill may be hung up at some point over the donor/donee argument, and we will watch as this moves along through the legislative process. But there is a much more fundamental problem in the country in terms of the distribution of transportation money, and that is between our metropolitan area, like my friend from Southern California (Mr. Dreier), where there is a vast amount of money that they put in and they get back a much, much smaller portion.

Orlando, Florida, 58 cents on the dollar; Tucson, 57 cents on the dollar; Dallas, Ft. Worth, 75 cents on the dollar: this is an imbalance for the vast majority of metropolitan areas in the country.

There has been an effort to get an amendment made in order by my friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), that would require some of the CMAQ funding that is used to solve air quality problems to be spent by the States. And currently some of the States like Texas are withholding this money, not spending it on the area to solve the air quality problem which is actually the source of the money.

I am hopeful before we are through we will be able to have this rule amended, to be able to make that in order, and that we look at this overall imbalance.

I am also deeply concerned about an element that is coming forward from my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy). Last year he had an amendment that is out that would restrict the ability of toll revenues just to be used for new construction. This is a horrific proposal. There is no reason to restrict State and regional areas on how they spend that money. This would allow them to spend the money to expand the road system, but not use the same money to maintain the road system. Even worse than that, it would not allow San Diego, Houston, New York, Minneapolis, or other communities which are currently doing valued pricing to continue to do this.

This is a bad idea. It is opposed by most of the State and local authorities who are going to have to live with this bill.

Now, I for one hope that we will be able to continue in the bipartisan spirit from which it came from our committee. We have the broadest coalition supporting our chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), assembled in the history of infrastructure that has been considered by this Congress, from the Chamber of Commerce to the environmental groups, from the bicyclists, to the asphalt folks, the Women's Federated Garden Club of America all are on board for this broad-based, bipartisan bill. I sincerely hope we do not have it hijacked by narrow special interests and that we are able to debate it fully, fairly, honestly to make it work best for the American people.

We have been in the infrastructure business for the Federal Government since the founding of the Republic. It is an important national issue. I hope we maintain it.

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

I am pleased to rise in support of the bill. I think the Committee on Ways and Means is moving forward in a way that is reasonable with this. I personally am very pleased that the basic overall structural integrity of the bill has been maintained. It is a good bipartisan framework that builds on ISTEA. It has something for virtually every community in America.

I am particularly pleased that there is language in the bill that deals with small starts. I have had experience in my community with a street car development that is much less expensive; it is quick to build. It goes back and helps us reinvigorate the neighborhoods that were originally built around street cars decades, sometimes a century, ago. We have over 80 communities around the country that are interested in their opportunity to build a street car. The bill contains almost $1 billion over the next 5 years in projects that are termed ``small start,'' between $25 million and $75 million. It provides for an expedited process separate from the more expensive, more complex, more cumbersome new-starts provision.

I look forward to working with members on the committee to refine and move this forward. I hope we will have strong support from both sides of the aisle in conference to make sure that this is something that survives and is further enhanced.

And before I finish on the small-starts point, I would like to express deep appreciation to Joyce Rose and to Ken House for making it possible for this language to be there and to be as effective as it is.

I did want to make one brief reference to the donor-donee that my friend from Florida was talking about, that they are up to 85, 86 percent. I have some sympathy for that. But as I pointed out on this floor, the big donor-donee disparity is not between a few States that win or lose, it is between the metropolitan areas across the country that are systematically shortchanged in the allocation of transportation money. It may be that part of that is because the way that the structures go with the MPO and the flow of Federal dollars, that metropolitan areas have only a say over 6 percent of the funding flow. I see my friend from southern California. There is over a $1 billion net outflow from southern California in the metropolitan area to deal with its transportation needs. There are any number of cities in Florida that get less than 60 and 70 percent on the dollar. I see my friend from Dallas here. Her metropolitan area gets only 75 cents on the dollar. Of the 276 metropolitan areas, the vast majority of them are shortchanged, and in most instances, it is far more than the level that we are talking about between the donor and donee States.

This is something that Congress is going to have to spend some time focusing on. How do we guarantee that the needs of our metropolitan areas, where the vast majority of our population live, are met? Whether you are in a red State, a blue State, south, east, north or west, people live in these metropolitan areas; and in community after community after community, they are shortchanged. We have people come to the Floor supporting this excellent bill. I join them. And I am pleased that people are concerned to reduce the problems of congestion, of air pollution, of an inability to move freight in this country. But where is the air pollution, the congestion, the problems with freight? It is in the metropolitan areas. And unless we spend the money where it is needed, we are never going to improve the air quality, we are never going to be able to reduce the congestion that is strangling our communities. We are having a situation where it takes less time for freight to move from Portland, Oregon, or from Long Beach/LA to Chicago than it takes to move that freight through Chicago. Longer than it took to get there in the first place.

Mr. Chairman, there is no more important environmental or economic development legislation before this Congress. I like the direction that we are moving. I hope that we maintain the balance, the structure, a bipartisan effort to meet the needs of all America's communities. I hope that we are going to be looking towards the future, however, to make sure that we not only maintain that structure but we look for ways to get the money where it is most needed.

Mr. Chairman, I too rise in support of the amendment.

Amo Houghton was a true gentleman of the House, of great depth and charm. He helped make this a better institution in the finest tradition of Congress. Amo made our lives richer, his State a better place, and our Nation stronger.

I support the amendment, but I would say my only suggestion for improving it would be if it had somehow added the name of Priscilla Dewey Houghton, an outstanding citizen in her own right, Amo's wife and helpmate and monster bicyclist.

It is my pleasure to support the amendment, and I hope that this will be a reflection for Amo of all that he has meant to us.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. I want to make clear that I personally am open to the possibility of having more flexibility within the transportation fund: Value pricing and tolling have a role. They have had a role since the beginning of our freeway system. But this amendment is not the FAST-lane bill that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) introduced last year.

Despite the rhetoric that it is supported by every major highway user group, his amendment is opposed by almost every highway user group, including AASHTO. My colleague from Minnesota pointed out AGC, APTA, AMPO, and the International Bridge and Tunnel Turnpike Authority. They oppose this amendment.

Actually, there is correspondence that I will enter into the record that was actually signed against this from the Reason Foundation, Robert Poole.

Now, why is that? Well, first of all, there are a number of areas right now that this would severely restrict the ability of State DOTs and local governments to develop pricing systems that meet their local needs. No reason to do that. Almost every community currently using HOT lanes or value pricing has a portion of the revenue dedicated to transit and corridor improvements.

In fact, it has been proven time and time again that the support for value pricing actually increases if people can have a balanced approach. This is not balanced and the public does not support tolling on facilities without an equity element.

In fact, the Kennedy amendment assumes, or it asserts, and I talked to him again about this today, that it is not a problem for people to continue on. Well, in San Diego, New York, even Minneapolis, in his own State, where they are currently using HOT lanes, they would be restricted in the use of their revenues and could no longer use any of these funds to pay for transit investment in their corridor. That is why the local governments, transit agencies, AASHTO and road builders oppose this amendments.

Why would we dictate to them how they are going to design their use of toll revenues?

And adding a lane to a bridge or to a freeway is not just a single lane. If we are going to deal with congestion, which our chairman and the ranking member are concerned with, we need to do this in a comprehensive fashion. The adoption of this amendment will prohibit that. It limits it very narrowly, takes away the resources from people that have it, it prevents value pricing in any broader context.

Most fundamentally, there is no good reason to deny the flexibility to deal comprehensibly and comprehensively with our transportation needs. As a supporter of the use of tolls and value pricing where it is appropriate, where local governments want it, there is no reason why we should adopt this amendment and restrict provisions under the existing law. I think our chairman and the ranking member have proposed ways to explore moving forward, and we ought to reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter I referred to earlier.

AASHTO, Environmental Defense Oppose Tolling Measure That Lacks

Flexibility

The American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials (AASHTO), which represents state

transportation departments, today joined with the group

Environmental Defense, the construction industry, and other

organizations to strongly oppose an amendment that would

cripple state and local ability to use tolling to meet

transportation needs and manage traffic problems.

Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-MN) proposes the amendment to H.R. 3,

the highway and transit reauthorization bill expected to come

to the House floor tomorrow. The proposed amendment would

further restrict states' and localities' current tolling

authority, restrict tolling on Interstates, limit tolling as

a revenue option, and eliminate funding for promising non-

highway transportation market incentive pilot projects that

help reduce traffic and pollution.

``We agree with the President that these decisions need to

be made on a state and local level,'' said AASHTO Executive

Director John Horsley.

``While AASHTO and Environmental Defense have frequently

differed on highway-related issues,'' Horsley said, ``the

limitations inherent in Rep. Kennedy's tolling bill would

needlessly restrict an important revenue and traffic-

management tool available to state departments of

transportation, as they seek to close the gap between

pressing transportation needs and available resources,''

Horsley said.

Tolling is being explored in several states, including New

York, California, and Texas, in combination with debt

financing as a way to advance sorely needed transportation

infrastructure projects. Horsley explained that AASHTO's

members believe state transportation officials should have

the ability to determine, on a case-by-case basis, where

tolling would be most productive and what projects should be

financed using toll revenues.

As submitted Tuesday afternoon to the Rules Committee, the

Kennedy legislation would allow for new tolls to be levied

only to fund additional lane construction or to convert high-

occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to high-occupancy toll (HOT)

lanes. If used for new construction, tolls newly imposed

under the amendment would have to be lifted once debt-service

was paid and a reserve fund for maintenance and operations

had been established.

The Kennedy amendment continues to restrict toll revenues

for highway use only, denying agencies the opportunity to

fund new improved transit.

``The Kennedy amendment would reverse a growing trend in

which states are experimenting with tolls to cut congestion

and air pollution,'' said Michael Replogle, Transportation

Director for Environmental Defense. ``San Diego is using

tolls on the 1-15 corridor to pay for new express-bus

services. New York uses tolls to raise hundreds of millions

of dollars for bridges, tunnels and rapid rail transit.

Congress should give states the freedom to use these tools to

cut congestion and pollution and boost access--not take the

tools away.''

``Properly placed transit projects remove a great deal of

traffic from overcrowded roads,'' Horsley noted. ``We need to

be able to address the nation's transportation needs in a

holistic, multi-modal way, not piecemeal.''

Replogle said his group supports ``accountability and

transparency for toll-road projects to mitigate their

environmental impacts and traffic growth. We can minimize new

pavement by doing more to price and manage the pavement we've

already got,'' Replogle said.

Although AASHTO and Environmental Defense have found common

ground on the Kennedy language, Horsley noted that they

remain of two minds about a variety of issues within the

larger reauthorization bill, H.R. 3, being moved by House

transportation leaders.

The Kennedy approach to date has drawn the opposition of

the Tolling Coalition, which includes AASHTO, the American

Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA), the

Associated General Contractors (AGC), the American Council of

Engineering Companies (ACEC), the National Asphalt Pavement

Association (NAPA), the National Stone, Sand and Gravel

Association, the International Bridge, Tunnel & Turnpike

Authority (IBTTA) and the National Council for Public-Private

Partnerships.

Other members of the Tolling Coalition include Koch

Performance Roads Inc., Peter Kiewit and Sons, Nossaman

Guthner Knox Elliott LLP, Parsons Brinckerhoff, the Bay Area

Council, the Ybarra Group, Ashland Inc., Secretary of

Transportation Whittington Clement of the Commonwealth of

Virginia, the Colorado Department of Transportation, the

Texas Department of Transportation, the Maryland Department

of Transportation, Gabriel Roth, and Robert W. Poole of the

Reason Public Policy Institute.

Environmental Defense, a nonprofit dedicated to

breakthrough solutions to environmental The Kennedy amendment

has drawn opposition as well from the Value Pricing Futures

Group, a coalition that includes Environmental Defense, a

400,000 member nonprofit group dedicated to innovative

solutions to environmental problems, and many other groups.

These include the American Public Transportation Association,

the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, the Miami-Dade

Expressway Authority, the Georgia State Road and Tollway

Authority, the San Diego Association of Governments, Portland

Metro in Oregon, the Alameda County Congestion Management

Agency, Wilbur Smith Associates, and the Surface

Transportation Policy Project.

Also, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Regional

Plan Association, the TriState Transportation Campaign, the

American Planning Association, the American Society of

Landscape Architects, the Independent Institute, the Central

Parking System of Orange County, California, HNTB Corp.,

Transportation Innovations, Inc., UrbanTrans Consultants,

City CarShare, the International Downtown Association, TIME/

to Improve Municipal Efficiency, Cofiroute USA, the Resource

Systems Group, CRSPE, Inc. of Cape Coral, Florida, Smart

Growth America, Friends of the Earth, Transportation

Alternatives of New York City, the Union of Concerned

Scientists, the Center for Neighborhood Technology in

Chicago, the Oregon Environmental Council, CYCLE-SAFE, INC.

of Grand Rapids, Michigan, the Thunderhead Alliance, the

Vermont Bicycle & Pedestrian Coalition and Lee County

Commissioner John Albion of Florida.

Mr. Chairman, this bill has been a long time coming. I would like to commend Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar for their work together on this bill. It is amazing how two individuals from different parties can get together and share a common cause, and that is to better the transportation system within our Nation.

I would also like to commend Chairman Young's staff, they have been very

accessible trying to accomplish this bill, and Subcommittee Chairman Petri. I understand your passion, and I share that with you, but I have watched you work in recent years and your motivation towards providing a better transportation system for this country.

When this country was founded, we had basically two main areas of oversight. That was to ensure interstate commerce, and protect and defend our borders. This bill ensures interstate commerce. It is definitely not the amount of money a lot of us would like to see it be. Chairman Young, I know, fought very hard, and we all know what a kind and gentle man he is and an easy man to get along with, but he put that aside and was willing to be forceful, he is a forceful man by nature, and to really fight for what we believe is right and that is more money for our States.

California, as the previous speaker said, is probably the largest donor State in this Nation. Unless you go to California and you drive the freeways and you understand what working people go through, what truckers go through, the problem we face with the Alameda Corridor East which deals directly with the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, when that was funded originally in the mid-nineties, we funded 100 percent of the improvements from the harbors to commerce, but there was nothing done from commerce all the way through LA County, San Bernardino County, Riverside County and Orange County. The impact is incredible, and it is growing daily. How many people do you know that cannot afford to live within the communities within which they work so they have to buy in an area that is outside of their working areas, we see in California, and they spend hours each day driving back and forth to work, and it is getting worse. Unless we come up with the funds to improve our at-grade crossings for the trains, we are just going to sit there and watch trains go by. We are going to sit on the freeways and watch trucks coming back and forth from those harbors when people are trying to get back and forth to work to provide for their families.

Nothing has as great an impact on our economic development, growth patterns and quality of life as transportation. If you are going to have a good system, if you are going to have a system that is critical in keeping people moving and goods moving and cities and communities prosperous, you have to provide for the transportation needs that the American people are demanding and require.

In California, they have gone through some very difficult economic times. The State of California has been in deficit for recent years and is having to continue to cut back on their spending. One area they tend to focus on cutting back on seems to be transportation. I have never been as impacted by calls, letters and requests from my local communities, and those requests are for dollars to be able to meet the local transportation needs that they have, needs that, in the past, they have been able to accommodate themselves.

This year, in some of our communities in California, it is worse than others because we have been plagued by an incredible amount of rain, more rain than the sewers in California are able to accommodate. We have houses sliding off of hills, very severe economic problems and situations that our cities and counties have been put into. And dollars that would otherwise be placed in transportation to fulfill those needs locally are being placed to help people who are being impacted by the slides and the devastation that California has recently experienced. Then that puts the cities in a situation where they have to come back to Congress and say, we need some of our tax dollars back to be able to help move people, to repair the potholes, to improve the highways, the freeways that are impacted, the bridges that are deteriorating in California and throughout this country. We have to do something about that. That is what this bill does.

Again, I want to praise Chairman Young. He has done everything he can to provide the maximum amount of dollars we can through a bill. I would like to commend our leadership, Subcommittee Chairman Petri. I really appreciate everything he has done. The staff that are here in the room. They have always been accommodating and willing to listen to our needs, and they have always done what they can to help us. Chairman Young has gone out of his way to be understanding, cooperative and basically provide the resources that we need to better the people's lives in California. I am proud to be a part of this committee and be a part of this bill. I strongly support an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by commending Chairman Young, Subcommittee Chairman Petri, and Ranking Member Oberstar for working tirelessly over the past several months to produce a reauthorization bill that effectively addresses America's transportation needs. As we all know, nothing has as great an impact on our economic development, growth patterns, and quality of life as transportation. A reliable and efficient transportation system is critical to keeping people and goods moving and cities and communities prosperous. Our Founding Fathers believed that the free-flow of interstate commerce was one of the important foundations of this country. In this generation, ensuring interstate commerce means making sure that goods can move along our freeway and rail systems to provide the goods and services that we need in this nation. H.R. 3, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (TEA-LU) will ensure that our transportation network continues to meet the demands of our nation's burgeoning economy and growing population.

As it is, congestion is choking our roadways, bridges are in dire need of restructuring, and public transportation is failing to effectively meet the needs of America's commuters. With a constrained budget in my home state of California, many of my state's communities do not have enough money to fix potholes, let alone expand capacity to keep pace with our growing population. Passage of this important bill will sustain our nation's economic growth and ensure our constituents are provided with the safest and most efficient transportation network possible.

Goods Movement

One of the most important aspects of TEA-LU is its attention to the infrastructure deficiencies facing our nation's freight corridors. Southern California serves as a vital conduit for transporting goods to the rest of the nation. Southern California is the largest gateway for trade in the country, with 25 percent of the nation's exports and imports flowing through our seaports and airports. People throughout the United States and the world count on shipping freight to and receiving freight from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The combined ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are ranked as the nation's largest and the world's third largest deep-sea ports. Freight deliveries from California to the rest of the nation are expected to double by 2020.

Currently in my district, more than 50 trains per day travel from the ports through Orange County's Orangethorpe rail corridor, with rail traffic expected to increase to 135 trains per

day by the year 2020. While the importance of this corridor to our nation's economy is indisputable, so too are the effects increased train traffic has had on local communities' quality of life. Traffic congestion, noise, air pollution and delays in emergency-response time are just some of the negative side effects that accompany heavy rail traffic. Our local freeways, highways, streets and railways are essentially subsidizing the transport of our nation's goods and services.

Projected rail delays will also prolong the delivery of vital goods and services to consumers across the nation. With a staggering $802 billion worth of goods shipped from California to the rest of the country each year, we simply cannot afford to ignore this issue any longer. Ensuring that these goods are transported across the country in a timely manner all depends on a fluid transportation system. Given that all of this multi-modal activity supports the national economy, Southern California's role must be recognized and supported at the national level.

Environmental Streamlining

We must act to ensure that we have policies and regulations conducive to swift and unencumbered project delivery. As it is, many transportation projects are unnecessarily delayed because of duplicative environmental requirements and administrative red tape. While I strongly believe that stewardship of the environment is critically important, I also believe that high-priority transportation projects must not be allowed to languish indefinitely in the federal environmental review process.

For this reason, I have submitted a proposal to allow states like California, which has a wealth of experience administering its own stringent environmental laws, the responsibility for compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. This would go a long way toward ensuring that transportation projects are approved in a timely manner. Moreover, I am confident that environmental protection would be maintained and even enhanced under what would be a more centralized and efficient system of implementing transportation projects. I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member between floor consideration and conference to incorporate an environmental streamlining pilot project into TEA-LU.

The reauthorization of TEA-21 will provide communities across the nation with the money needed to effectively address their transportation needs. TEA-LU will provide California, along with the rest of America, with a framework to alleviate congestion on our roadways, enhance, and modernize our public transportation system, and repair and build upon an aging transportation infrastructure. As a member of the Transportation Committee, I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress and the Bush Administration to pass TEA-LU and ensure that America is provided with the funds and resources needed to maintain and grow our vital transportation infrastructure.

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

The chairman has done a good job of talking about the people who do the real work around here, which is the staff, with good direction from the Members, and the chairman of the committee and the subcommittee chairman and the direction that I and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) have attempted to provide in this endeavor.

This, I believe, may be the signature accomplishment of this Congress, as it goes to positive accomplishments for the economy of the United States and domestic programs.

The investment in this bill, investment of taxes, paid by the American people at the pump, we are not creating new deficit or debt here; we are spending their tax money in the way it was intended when it was collected from them when they tanked up their car or their commercial vehicle.

For every billion dollars in this bill of investment, of mitigating congestion, of repairing cracked bridges, of resurfacing highways, for transit, for every billion we spend, the President's Department of Transportation estimates that it creates about 47,000 jobs, not just direct good-wage construction jobs, but jobs that spill over to the contractors, the small businesses that subcontract, the communities where the projects take place with the spending in those communities, with improvement in the movement of freight so trucks do not have to take lengthy detours, so the just-in-time delivery can work better for American businesses, putting people to work in companies that are more competitive. All of that flows from this $284 billion investment.

In an ideal world, I would invest more and I believe that the chairman has a similar position on that, but we are constrained by current budget reality, and this is a good step to be taken by the House of Representatives; and hopefully, this will move the process out of limbo in the Senate. In the last Congress, we could have gotten this job done had the Senate followed the lead of the House. They did not. Hopefully, this time they will be more amenable to getting this bill done and getting it done long before the temporary extension expires at the end of May.

Our departments of transportation across the country need certainty. Many of them are restricted legislatively or constitutionally from obligating funds into larger projects or projects that will go more than 1 year because we are in this series of temporary extensions of the Transportation Efficiency Act as we move toward TEA-LU.

With the adoption of TEA-LU and the certainty that will come with that, we will see a whole lot of on-the-shelf, ready-to-go vital projects across America, that will put tens of thousands to work this next summer, move forward. But only if they get that certainty. It is estimated in the last year $2 billion of necessary spending, investment in roads, bridges, highways, transit projects was foregone because of this

uncertainty. I mean, everyone knows we are going to make these investments, but at what level and over what period of time and with what constraints on the spending. So the States themselves need this.

In my own State, we have a tremendous problem with cracked bridges on Interstate 5, and it is interfering with international commerce and interstate commerce, and we want to move ahead; but we need the certainty of this legislation, the investment in this legislation to do that.

I see that the ranking member of the full committee has come in.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of the time on this side since I believe we will probably hear from the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the committee and a champion of all modes of transportation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I have worked closely with my colleague from Florida and always enjoy working with him. I would be happy to go for a trillion dollars in this bill. And I think we could spend that money wisely and make the country more competitive. I can guarantee him, if we could get to a trillion dollars, we could get him back 99 cents or maybe even a dollar on a dollar.

So I am hopeful that as we move through the process we can increase the amount of money, which will allow us to accommodate States like Florida and others who need investments just like everyone else in this country.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), a member of the committee and a leader on transportation issues.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), an outstanding member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), my colleague, a member of the committee and a neighbor to the north.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a senior member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the next-most senior member on the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), a new member of the committee who has already made his mark.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), a prominent member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), a friend and colleague and senior member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) who is the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking Democrat on the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

If this is to close the debate, the important message to the American people is that this is an investment that will pave their way, smooth their way to work and on their errands, in taking their kids to school, and make the kids safer going to school. It will put their friends, their neighbors and themselves to work. It will improve the efficiency of the United States economy. And these are all jobs and all investments that will be made 100 percent American, here at home in the United States of America.

I believe it resolves a lot of problems with our economy. It will put a lot of folks to work. Real jobs for real people on needed projects, investing their tax dollars in the way they were intended when they paid that tax at the pump.

As the ranking member pointed out, it could be more. If we keep full faith with the American people, we should invest that money now and not hold it back to create illusory deficit offsets. It cannot be spent on anything else but transportation infrastructure.

This is a good bill today. Hopefully, it will be a better bill tomorrow and when we come back, before the end of May with the conference from the Senate.

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 to this amendment, but do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I came to Congress at the same time as Amo Houghton. I think Congress is diminished by his departure. He was a gentleman. He was a rare spirit who was willing to stand up for what he thought was right even when he had to confront leaders on the other side, whether it was his own party or leaders on our side of the aisle. He spoke from his conscience and I think represented his district well.

I just had the pleasure and opportunity to be with him again last weekend with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) to do the reenactment of the March For Bloody Sunday over the Pettus Bridge; and as usual, Amo was there in heart and spirit, and it was wonderful to see him again. So I am wholeheartedly in support of this; and I think everyone will be in support of that.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman would preempt States' rights which is, I do not believe, a position that Congress should be taking, but he said, don't worry, those States require some sort of minimum of insurance and people would be covered. If people would be covered, then why is the potential liability or the actual liability as according to the previous speaker so large to those companies? It must mean that the levels of insurance are pretty inadequate. If they had adequate insurance or if they were required to carry adequate insurance, then this might be a supportable position, but to defer to the States who might have inadequate insurance and then leave potential injured persons hanging out there and preempt the States, I think, is unconscionable for this Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This amendment addresses the big issues surrounding this year's road bill. How do we meet expanding capacity? How do we do so without increasing taxes or expanding the deficit? How do we address an over reliance on the gas tax? The degree to which the FAST Act, introduced by myself and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), attracted strong bipartisan support reflects the success in addressing these issues; by expanding capacity, by removing an outdated prohibition against charging fees on the interstate, and preserving the trust of the driving public by doing so only if the fees are charged on new lanes, so we have new concrete or tar; charge electronically, so there are no toll booths; and the fees go away when construction and maintenance costs have been provided for.

The use of these optional lanes would be optional to drivers, and the program is optional for States to use and does not impact their funding allocations. It is estimated that the FAST provisions could provide $50 billion in additional capacity over the road bill period without increasing taxes or expanding the deficit.

The FAST Act had 73 bipartisan cosponsors. Both the conservative Heritage Foundation and the new Democrat Progressive Policy Institute have written favorably about it. I appreciate the Chairman's efforts to reflect FAST concepts in H.R. 3. I have been very open with him about my intent to offer this amendment, but the concerns we have with H.R. 3 are that it is drafted so that it limits the ability to increase capacity by limiting its FAST-like section to only three projects and, in that way, gives States far less flexibility than they deserve. It limits the ability to increase capacity by limiting its FAST-lane section to only three projects, as I said; allows tolls to be charged on existing lanes in both 1209, in sections 1603 and 1604; and allows those tolls to be charged indefinitely under those programs. It allows revenues under these programs to be diverted to a variety of nonuser purposes.

Long-term FAST-style fee lanes can be a major solution to relieving congestion, but only if we preserve the trust of the driving public. The provisions included in TEA-LU could lead to the same distrust and resistance that has resulted in every recent State referendum on increases in gas tax being defeated. When used with FAST-style protections, it has been accepted by drivers, as witnessed by the Minneapolis, Minnesota Star Tribune poll showing 69 in support of FAST.

Frankly, many States around the country are using FAST. This amendment authorizes variable congestion tolls on existing roads and on newly-constructed lanes, and I would just recommend to my colleagues that we adopt this capacity-expanding, State-empowering, maintaining- the-trust-of-the-driving-public amendment.

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

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

When I listen to the gentleman from Oregon, I am always trying to figure out whether we are on the same page or on a different page because I would agree we need to give States more flexibility.

First of all, Mr. Poole pulled his name off the letter the gentleman referred to when they saw the actual wording on our amendment.

Second, value pricing would have more use, I am convinced, at the end of the 6-year road period under our amendment than under the existing language. We allow value pricing on existing toll roads. We allow value pricing on HOV to HOT conversions under our amendment, different than last year. And we would allow value pricing, congestion pricing on all new FAST lanes which we do not limit to three as the very highly restrictive draft put forth by the committee, but would allow an unlimited amount using value pricing if States so wish because we grant them that flexibility if it meets those simple criteria to honor the trust of the driving public.

I appreciate very much the good work that AASHTO does, but I have never really viewed them as a highway-user organization; they are a highway building and constructing organization.

Those that are supporting the Kennedy-Smith amendment is the Highway Users Association, is the American Truckers Association which makes this their top priority, is the 108,000 small business owner-operator individual drivers of America, is AAA. All of those are the preeminent highway users, as well as it is supported by those that believe we ought to be fiscally responsible and we ought to honor the trust of the driving public, whether we are talking about Americans for Tax Reform, National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, and many others.

Mr. Chairman, this is pro-capacity, and this is pro-give-States- flexibility, and this is to make sure that we add more construction and add more capacity to our lanes.

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

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

I respect the leadership of the chairman and his commitment to work to try to figure out whether we can have tolls be part of the solution in a fiscally responsible way. I would suggest it is not every DOT that is opposing it. Minnesota is supporting it. With regard to Texas, all eight projects in Texas have allowed that they are working on doing this.

Our amendment allows more capacity because instead of restricting FAST-type lanes to only three projects around the country, there can be an unlimited number in place around the country. This frankly gives more capacity, not less. Katie Freeway, for example, is one of those that allows. Highway Interstate 69 that they are trying to build is allowed. There may be some misinformation that is being spread on this.

I would also like to address some of the information that may have come from the committee suggesting this is an anti-tolling amendment. This is a responsible expansion of fee-type lanes being built and would allow for more than the underlying amendment. This does give, maybe in different ways than the committee drafted, but more flexibility to the States. It also allows more lanes to be built.

If the goal is to put tolls on existing lanes, which we restrict further in this amendment, there is ability to put more tolls in existing lanes in the committee draft. But if the question is whether we can put more tolls on new expansion of highway capacity, there is unquestionably greater flexibility offered under this amendment.

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

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

First of all, there was a statement of opposition from the State of Texas without really seeing our amendment, and so I have a call in and have not yet had a return call from the commissioner in Texas. We would be happy to work with them to make sure they have the flexibility they need. This provides more flexibility. I would agree with the chairman, we want to be having an expansion of construction using these types of lanes, which is what we are for. But a big part of the disagreement is whether we want to put a toll on existing lanes and just make it more painful to drive, or whether we want to actually build and add construction and add capacity and use fee-type revenues to help facilitate that expansion, which this unquestionably would add significantly more of. I encourage support of the amendment.

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

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

I would just respond, I agree with the gentlewoman. We ought to be giving more capacity to the States. Our amendment provides that, estimated by a study done by Mr. Poole, of, I would say, $50 billion. So we are turning away, by opposing this amendment, the $50 billion it could generate.

This is really a debate about whether we want to toll existing lanes and just bring in more revenue, or whether we want to add capacity. The Kennedy amendment adds more capacity.

In closing, I would just reiterate to try to clarify some of the factual errors that have potentially been espoused on behalf of this amendment. First of all, we do not affect existing tollways in the least. We do not effect the HOV to HOT conversions. We allow the three projects that were currently in law to allow new expansions, conversion of existing lanes to tolls. But beyond that, we put a limit so we stop the further expansion of just putting tolls on existing lanes, and we unquestionably provide far more authority than the underlying bill to add new lanes, new tar, and new concrete because the existing bill only limits it to three projects where there is an unlimited amount of increased projects funded by fees, providing they are new lanes charged electronically so there are no toll booths, and fees go away when it is paid for.

Again, I plead with Members to look at the underlying facts of the bill and look at the ones that are supported by highway users across the board and look at the ones supported by those looking for responsible government.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.