The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Transportation was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H2066-H2076 on April 2, 2004.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brown of South Carolina). Pursuant to House Resolution 593 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 3550.
{time} 0913
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3550) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, with Mr. Nethercutt (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, April 1, 2004, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 20 printed in part B of House Report 108-456 by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) had been postponed.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is now in order to consider the amendment at the desk offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
Amendment Offered by Mr. Petri
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Petri:
Page 548, lines 6 and 7, strike ``Jefferson Davis Transitway (Columbia Pike to Pentagon)'' and insert `Crystal City Potomac Yards Transit''.
Page 548, after line 7, insert the following (and redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
(99) Northern Virginia--Columbia Pike Rapid Transit Project.
In the table contained in section 3038 of the bill, in item number 25--
(1) strike ``$240,000.00'' and insert ``$912,000.00'';
(2) strike ``$247,500.00'' and insert ``$940,500.00''; and
(3) strike ``$262,500.00'' and insert ``$997,500.00''.
In the table contained in section 3038 of the bill, in item number 26--
(1) strike ``$240,000.00'' and insert ``$912,000.00'';
(2) strike ``$247,500.00'' and insert ``$940,500.00''; and
(3) strike ``$262,500.00'' and insert ``$997,500.00''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there is any objection to this technical amendment. It has been reviewed by people on both sides.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This side has looked over the amendment. We have no problem with it whatsoever. We are happy to accept it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 0915
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 printed in House Report 108-456.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota:
Title I, amend section 1209 to read as follows (and conform the table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 1209. REPEAL.
Section 1012(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 149 note; 105 Stat. 1938) is repealed.
Title I, strike sections 1603 and 1604 and insert the following (and conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly):
SEC. 1603. FAST FEES.
(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, as amended by section 1208 of the bill, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 168. FAST fees
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and implement an Interstate System FAST Lanes program under which the Secretary, notwithstanding sections 129 and 301, shall permit a State, or a public or private entity designated by a State, to collect fees to finance the expansion of a highway, for the purpose of reducing traffic congestion, by constructing 1 or more additional lanes (including bridge, support, and other structures necessary for that construction) on the Interstate System.
``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to participate in the program, a State shall submit to the Secretary for approval an application that contains--
``(1) an identification of the additional lanes (including any necessary bridge, support, and other structures) to be constructed on the Interstate System under the program;
``(2) in the case of 1 or more additional lanes that affect a metropolitan area, an assurance that the metropolitan planning organization established under section 134 for the area has been consulted during the planning process concerning the placement and amount of fees on the additional lanes; and
``(3) a facility management plan that includes--
``(A) a plan for implementing the imposition of fees on the additional lanes;
``(B) a schedule and finance plan for construction, operation, and maintenance of the additional lanes using revenues from fees (and, as necessary to supplement those revenues, revenues from other sources); and
``(C) a description of the public or private entities that will be responsible for implementation and administration of the program.
``(c) Requirements.--The Secretary shall approve the application of a State for participation in the program after the Secretary determines that, in addition to meeting the requirements of subsection (b), the State has entered into an agreement with the Secretary that provides that--
``(1) fees collected from motorists using a FAST lane shall be collected only through the use of noncash electronic technology;
``(2) all revenues from fees received from operation of FAST lanes shall be used only for--
``(A) debt service relating to the investment in FAST lanes;
``(B) reasonable return on investment of any private entity financing the project, as determined by the State;
``(C) any costs necessary for the improvement, and proper operation and maintenance (including reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation), of FAST lanes and existing lanes, if the improvement--
``(i) is necessary to integrate existing lanes with the FAST lanes;
``(ii) is necessary for the construction of an interchange
(including an on- or off-ramp) from the FAST lane to connect the FAST lane to--
``(I) an existing FAST lane;
``(II) the Interstate System; or
``(III) a highway; and
``(iii) is carried out before the date on which fees for use of FAST lanes cease to be collected in accordance with paragraph (6); or
``(D) the establishment by the State of a reserve account to be used only for long-term maintenance and operation of the FAST lanes;
``(3) fees may be collected only on and for the use of FAST lanes, and may not be collected on or for the use of existing lanes;
``(4) use of FAST lanes shall be voluntary;
``(5) revenues from fees received from operation of FAST lanes may not be used for any other project (except for establishment of a reserve account described in paragraph
(2)(D) or as otherwise provided in this section);
``(6) on completion of the project, and on completion of the use of fees to satisfy the requirements for use of revenue described in paragraph (2), no additional fees shall be collected; and
``(7)(A) to ensure compliance with paragraphs (1) through
(5), annual audits shall be conducted for each year during which fees are collected on FAST lanes; and
``(B) the results of each audit shall be submitted to the Secretary.
``(d) Apportionment.--
``(1) In general.--Revenues collected from FAST lanes shall not be taken into account in determining the apportionments and allocations that any State or transportation district within a State shall be entitled to receive under or in accordance with this chapter.
``(2) No effect on state expenditure of funds.--Nothing in this section affects the expenditure by any State of funds apportioned under this chapter.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--
(1) The analysis for subchapter I of chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 167, as added by section 1208 of the bill, the following:
``168. FAST fees.''.
(2) Section 301 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting after ``tunnels,'' the following: ``and except as provided in section 168,''.
SEC. 1604. TOLL FEASIBILITY.
Section 106 of title 23, United States Code, as amended by section 1605 of this bill, is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Toll Feasibility.--The Secretary shall select and conduct a study on a project under this title that is intended to increase capacity, and that has an estimated total cost of at least $50,000,000, to determine whether--
``(1) a toll facility for the project is feasible; and
``(2) privatizing the construction, operation, and maintenance of the toll facility is financially advisable
(while retaining legal and administrative control of the portion of the applicable Interstate route).''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 593, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
The amendment today addresses the big issues surrounding this year's road bill: how to expand capacity, how to do so without increasing taxes or expanding the deficit, and how do we address our overreliance on the gas tax.
The degree to which the FAST Act, introduced by myself and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), has attracted strong bipartisan support reflects the success in addressing these issues by expanding capacity by removing an outdated prohibition again fee-based lanes on the interstate but preserving the trust of the driving public, by doing so only if the fees are charged on new lanes so we have new tar or concrete, charged electronically so there are no toll booths, the fees go away when construction and maintenance costs are provided for, and use of the lanes are optional to drivers and optional for States to use.
It has a broad base of support, and I do believe that this could add
$50 billion in capacity to our roads over the road bill period.
I appreciate the chairman's efforts to reflect FAST concepts in the bill and have been very open with him about my intent to offer this amendment, but my concerns are this in TEA LU: that it limits the ability to increase capacity by limiting its FAST-like sections to only three projects; it allows tolls to be charged on existing lanes; it allows tolls to be charged indefinitely; it allows funds raised under these toll programs to be diverted to other uses.
Long term, FAST-style fee lanes can be major solutions to relieving congestion but only if we preserve the trust of the driving public. The types of provisions included in TEA LU could lead to the same distrust and resistance that has resulted in every State referendum on increases in gas tax being defeated. When used with FAST-style protections, it has been accepted by drivers, as witnessed by a recent Minneapolis Star Tribune poll that shows 69 percent in support of FAST-style provisions.
I urge my colleagues to join those that are supporting us, because this is increasing capacity, like the Associated General Contractors, the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, and the American Association of State Highway Officials, those who are users like the American Trucking Association, Owner-Operator Individual Drivers, NFIB, Food Marketing Institute, and taxpayer groups like the National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Tax Reform, and Citizens for Sound Economy to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague from Minnesota for advancing a concept of how we are going to increase capacity. We have deep concerns, I think all of us, that we are in an ultimate downward spiral in terms of the revenue from user fees that provide the resources we need for funding America's transportation future.
While we have refused to index these fees for inflation, we find that there are increasing demands and stresses that are being placed. Ultimately, we are going to have more fuel-efficient vehicles, and that means that we are not going to reduce at all the wear and tear on our highways, we are not going to reduce the demands of congestion, but we will over time reduce revenues.
Now, I appreciate what my colleague from Minnesota and my friend from the State of Washington are doing in terms of helping expand this window. This is an approach that we should explore. However, the approach that they bring to us today is unnecessarily narrow. It would restrict it exclusively to highway projects. That is why you have opposition from the Surface Transportation Policy Project. That is why, in January of this year, there was an extensive correspondence from APTA that was shared with our ranking members and the committee chair that deal with the problems inherent in this.
It is inconceivable that we would not want to have a balanced approach to solving transportation issues. As we have seen in State after State, people want balance.
In Phoenix, one the second highest per capita usage of automobiles in the country, they had problems with road-only initiatives. It was not until they came forward with a balanced transportation initiative that allowed use for transit as well as roads that it had the public support.
The proposal here would preclude what is going on right now in San Diego, a perfect example of how we can use tolling. In San Diego, there are currently 22,000 daily fast track automobile customers generating
$2 million a year to pay for the program's operating costs, and they provide $1 million in support of commuter bus service in the I-15 corridor.
Now, I am not here to say that we do not need to expand road capacity. In many cases, we do. I am working to do that with some of the bottlenecks between our States of Oregon and Washington. But to say, as this amendment does, that if you are going to move in the area of other alternatives dealing with tolling, that you cannot use proven, successful initiatives that would add transit, that would add bus rapid transit, it is unnecessarily narrow, restrictive. It is not the best solution.
I tried to have this conversation with the gentleman and his staff, to have a comprehensive solution like we have under ISTEA, like we have under TEA LU, where communities are given the choice to design the best possible solution. I think we could move forward, but if we are going to have something that is narrow, restrictive and turning back to the past, which is actually going to reduce public support as well as reduce effectiveness, I do not think it is worthy of our support at this point. I very reluctantly oppose.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), my cosponsor in the FAST Act which had 73 co-sponsors and a perfect partner for bus rapid transit.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) for bringing this issue up.
What we are trying to do is expand options to fund transportation solutions. As both gentlemen have pointed out, there are many limitations on that, and States throughout the country are struggling with their efforts to find the resources to fund the transportation solutions they want. This is one idea to basically make tolls an option for State projects so that they could receive Federal funds if they wanted to use those tolls to fund it and maintenance of that new construction. The amendment expands this to allow for whatever projects want to apply.
It is my opinion that the bill itself is actually narrower. It only allows an isolated number of projects to have these toll roads. It is not my understanding that this amendment in any way changes the current structure on mass transit. I am not certain that we currently allow Federal funds to go for tolling to fund that. But this amendment, to my understanding, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) can perhaps correct me, does not speak to what the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer) just talked about. It does not further restrict funds for transit. If it did, I would not be supportive of it. It expands what is available for roads.
Toll roads, by definition, are for roads. If there was some way to expand further to deal with mass transit, I would be in favor of it. It was my understanding that this amendment does not further restrict what the law already does. It targets one area and expands the opportunities, whereas the current bill only allows for an isolated number of projects to take advantage of this opportunity. As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) pointed out, it is like three projects throughout the country that could get this, and obviously there are more than that.
So this is an opportunity to expand access to transportation opportunities, and that is why I support the amendment. My State and just about every other State I can think of desperately needs more funds for transportation. This opens up an avenue, a way for them to get those funds and build new roads and opens it up in a way that the public is likely to be supportive of. It funds specifically the road that they would be paying tolls on until it is paid for and the maintenance and care of it.
Getting public support for these issues has long been a challenge. We voted down the gas tax in the State of Washington on several occasions. This would be an opportunity to get people something that they want and expand transportation funds.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment. It is offered by a very valued and hard-working member of our committee. We have been working with the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle on the FAST proposal. Elements of it are contained in the bill before us. But the amendment as drafted would be disruptive to a number of aspects of the legislation that is currently on the books.
There is a three-State pilot program that would be repealed by the amendment, and there are also several new tolling proposals that are in this legislation that would be repealed by the proposal. We are not opposed to working with the Member and trying to perfect what is in the legislation as it goes forward, but as things stand at this point we oppose the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment. I disagree with my good friend from Oregon. This does not restrict but expands the options to expand our highway and interstate system.
We do not have to stray very far from the Capitol here to see the congestion that plagues our Nation's roads. Try to drive out of here on a Friday afternoon, which I will, and we will see rush hour traffic that will slow and almost stop the movement of automobiles out of this city.
DOT reports that the average rush hour has increased 18 minutes between 1997 and 2000. Additionally, congestion costs our nation $65 billion annually in lost productivity and wasted motor fuel. The idle time spent in traffic increases transportation costs for U.S. businesses and robs drivers of time they could spend at home with their families.
We must find workable solutions. I believe we have one in this amendment. It is an innovative method of combating this problem. The amendment allows for voluntary collection of fees for construction of additional lanes on the interstate highway system. Specifically, the amendment will allow States to create high-speed toll lanes to be used by motorists willing to pay a toll. Under the FAST lanes provision, the fees are collected electronically; thus, no toll booths. There will be no back-up. The fees collected are then used to pay off the newly constructed lanes. When enough revenue is obtained, they pay off the cost of the expansion. The fees are eliminated.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a common-sense approach to dealing with our Nation's increasing congestion problems. The Kennedy amendment provides States with a voluntary means of raising revenues for expanding their highways as much as $50 billion over the 6-year life of this bill, and this approach will free up dollars for other essential transportation projects throughout our States.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a win-win for both States and drivers. So I urge passage of the Kennedy amendment.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that, in regards to this amendment, we have received word from the United States Department of Transportation that they have very serious concerns about this amendment; and I think that we should take that into consideration when we are weighing supporting it or opposing it.
I would also like to say at this time that in the existing legislation we have two different programs pertaining to tolling. One has to do with new toll ways; one has to do with rehabilitation.
{time} 0930
A similar approach was taken 6 years ago to tolling where we had one program where three States could come into a program with tolling. We are far beyond that piece of legislation; and today, we still have no one that has involved themselves in the option of tolling underneath the old program.
So I really believe that rather than disrupt our bill and disrupt several significant sections of our bill, we should stick with what we have. There is actually an opportunity for six different States to participate in a tolling program for new tollways, for rehabilitation, and I think that that is the way to go.
I can appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, but I really think it is too disruptive and there will be very few takers for it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).
Mr. BURNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
This amendment is about financial accountability, projects that are funded by our tolling. Tolling can be an effective method of financing critical road improvements, but it must be done fairly. Tolling should be reasonable. They should not be allowed to go on indefinitely as a tax on road users.
This amendment allows tolls on only new, voluntary-use lanes, and ensures that revenues are dedicated specifically to new highway capacity. It will reduce construction times and cut congestion in high-
density areas.
I believe in giving States and local governments the maximum flexibility in dealing with traffic problems. This amendment provides that flexibility without sticking motorists with a permanent toll or travel tax.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I wanted to follow up on what my colleagues have said.
I agree with the sentiment of what my friend from Georgia said; but, in fact, the amendment that he was supporting does not provide that balance and that flexibility. That is why this amendment is opposed by the Surface Transportation Policy Project, by STPP, by ASSHTO, by APTA, because it does not provide maximum flexibility.
If you have a congested corridor, like we have in the Portland metropolitan area, you need a balanced approach. We are exploring, and discussing, the potential use of tolling. I think tolling is something that should be studied; but if we approve the approach of the gentleman from Minnesota, it would not permit the use of the tolling for any transit-related alternative, buses or rail.
It would not allow the use of these revenues to deal with reconstruction. In many of our areas, we have problems of congestion and mobility because there are some facilities that are falling apart; but under this amendment, the toll revenues would not be available for the reconstruction of projects, just new lanes.
It is not just a case of providing new transit lanes. Every community that is dealing with congestion knows that you have to deal with how you get on and off the connections, the interchanges, the bridges, and this amendment would not permit that. It is just those lanes.
In many cases, if you increase capacity and you do not have resources around it, I will tell my colleagues, as 10 years as a public works commissioner and having worked in over 100 communities around this country, that is a prescription for disaster.
So I strongly suggest that the concept be refined so that it can have a balanced approach, and then it would be worthy of the support of this body.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I appreciate the comments from my fellow colleagues from Illinois and Oregon and just want to clear up a couple of possible misconceptions.
Our FAST Act does provide for those connections. It does provide for maintenance, and it is a perfect complement to some of the most efficient transit options that are out there in the form of bus rapid transit. If you use congestion pricing on a fast lane, which is provided for, you can make sure that everybody's going 50 miles an hour or above, make it a very attractive option for bus rapid transit. Bus rapid transit is allowed to use these lanes, paid for by the users, free. You can combine it with car pools.
So this is not something that takes away any of the funding for transit that is currently available, can be meshed with bus rapid transit in a very complementary fashion; and when we talk about capacity, six States were mentioned by my friend from Illinois, but it is only six projects in six States.
If we are concerned that this road bill does not provide enough capacity to end the congestion around the country that is keeping people stuck in their traffic too long and away from families and work, why are we not letting fully bloom the FAST Act which could be $50 billion or more if we then try to nitpick it around the six projects in six different States.
Furthermore, the tolling sections that have been put in prior bills and in this bill have so many caveats that they will likely never be allowed to be used. We need a new source of funding. This provides a new source of funding, allows projects like the Katy Freeway in Houston to get done quicker, therefore, cheaper, frees up resources from other projects where the FAST Act would not apply.
If there is a market for the road, the road can be built there. It embraces public/private partnerships. It would encourage us to address the needs that are affecting our economic competitiveness, and this is ultimately about a user choice.
Yes, this amendment would take away the ability to put fees on existing lanes. This is an amendment that does take away the ability to put tolls in existing lanes. We will lose the trust of the driving public if we do so, but it does provide a price-value relationship. You only do FAST if it is on new lanes; therefore, they are getting something in return for it. They are paid for.
If you are stuck in traffic at 10 o'clock in the morning, you should have a choice. Use crosses demographic background. It benefits everyone.
This is the pro-capacity vote. This is the pro-taxpayer vote. That is why it will be scored by the Americans for Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers Union.
I encourage my fellow Members to stand up for drivers around the country and support the Kennedy-Smith amendment.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, I first of all want to say that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the full committee, strongly opposes this amendment. I have a statement by him which I will insert into the Record when we get back into the House.
The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) mentioned that there are numerous lanes that can be funded on an existing road. According to the legislation and the way I read the legislation, it is only possible to toll new lanes. You cannot toll existing lanes and improve them, bring them up to a higher standard.
Consequently, once again, I say we have to oppose this amendment because I think in the existing piece of legislation we have very good opportunities, carefully laid out, where if people wish to toll they can do so to build a new toll highway or they can do it to rehabilitate an existing highway.
So I think that this is an amendment that we really have done a better job with in the bill than this amendment would take care of. Consequently, once again, I say we oppose this amendment, and we would like to have everyone in this body join us in opposition to it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I am in strong opposition to this amendment.
The Kennedy amendment proposes to allow States to charge a toll on ever Interstate Highway across the country. Under the Kennedy amendment, the word ``toll'' should be spelled ``T-A-X.'' That is because, under the Kennedy amendment, American drivers are taxed twice: first when they pay at the pump and again when they pay the toll on the highway.
The Kennedy amendment proposes to eliminate three programs included in H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (TEA-
LU), that are dedicated to reducing congestion and testing the introduction of tolls on the Interstate: the Congestion Pricing Program and two tolling pilot programs.
Instead of addressing congestion in a comprehensive, multifaceted way, this amendment takes the reckless, single-minded approach of authorizing the use of Federal funds to support adding toll lanes to existing Interstate highways. Essentially, it proposes a permanent, nationwide program of imposing tolls on new Interstate lanes.
Mr. Chairman, the two pilot programs in TEA-LU take a measured, smart approach to tolling. First, TEA-LU authorizes an existing program for reconstructing and rehabilitating existing Interstates, and establishes a similar program to cover construction of new Interstate highways. Each pilot program is limited to three States, and each toll facility is to be chosen by the Secretary of Transportation. These steps will provide us with the opportunity to learn how effective Interstate tolling programs are at easing congestion and what we can do to improve their effectiveness.
Importantly, the programs in TEA-LU provide important protections against inequity and ensure that States are able to maintain their local roads adjacent to toll facilities in a condition sufficient to meet the traffic demands.
When an Interstate highway is tolled, inevitably some drivers will choose to use local, toll-free roads instead of paying the Interstate toll. When that happens, the local roads will likely see an increase in wear and tear and an increase in the number of accidents and injuries. TEA-LU would ensure that States can continue to maintain these local roads as they see fit. In contrast, the Kennedy amendment contains none of these important protections.
For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23 printed in House Report 108-456.
Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Isakson
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Isakson:
In section 1101(a) of the bill, strike paragraphs (1) through (3) and insert the following:
(1) Interstate maintenance program.--For the Interstate maintenance program under section 119 of title 23, United States Code, $4,478,227,346 for fiscal year 2004,
$4,551,839,370 for fiscal year 2005, $4,644,155,590 for fiscal year, 2006, $4,742,741,342 for fiscal year 2007,
$4,859,076,291 for fiscal year 2008, and $4,966,297,676 for fiscal year 2009.
(2) National highway system.--For the National Highway System under section 103 of that title, $5,373,872,608 for fiscal year 2004, $5,462,206,628 for fiscal year 2005,
$5,572,986,299 for fiscal year 2006, $5,691,289,610 for fiscal year 2007, $5,830,891,142 for fiscal year 2008, and
$5,959,556,398 for fiscal year 2009.
(3) Bridge program.--For the bridge program under section 144 of that title, $3,842,568,497 for fiscal year 2004,
$3,905,731,625 for fiscal year 2005, $3,984,944,542 for fiscal year 2006, $4,069,536,089 for fiscal year 2007,
$4,169,358,435 for fiscal year 2008, and $4,261,359,876 for fiscal year 2009.
In section 1101(a) of the bill, strike paragraphs (5) and
(6) and insert the following:
(5) Surface transportation program.--For the surface transportation program under section 133 of that title,
$6,269,517,870 for fiscal year 2004, $6,372,574,913 for fiscal year 2005, $6,501,817,007 for fiscal year 2006,
$6,639,837,878 for fiscal year 2007, $6,802,707,011 for fiscal year 2008, and $6,952,816,137 for fiscal year 2009.
(6) Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program.--For the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program under section 149 of that title,
$1,522,597,463 for fiscal year 2004, $1,547,652,365 for fiscal year 2005, $1,579,013,023 for fiscal year 2006,
$1,612,531,852 for fiscal year 2007, $1,652,086,163 for fiscal year 2008, and $1,688,541,453 for fiscal year 2009.
In section 1104(a) of the bill, insert ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1).
In section 1104(a) of the bill, strike paragraph (2).
In section 1104(a)(3) of the bill, in the matter proposed to be inserted, insert ``projects of national and regional significance,'' after ``highway safety improvement,''.
In section 1104(b) of the bill, insert ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1).
In section 1104(b) of the bill, strike paragraph (2).
In section 1104(b)(3) of the bill, in the matter proposed to be inserted, insert ``projects of national and regional significance,'' after ``highway safety improvement,''.
At the end of subtitle G of title I, add the following (and conform the table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 1703. SPECIAL RULE.
For purposes of calculating the minimum guarantee allocation of a State for a fiscal year under section 105 of title 23, United States Code, the Secretary shall not include any amounts received by the State for the project numbered 911 in the table contained in section 1702 and $17,000,000 of the amount received by the State for the project numbered 1061 in such table.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 593, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia. (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the committee chairman, and the ranking member for their cooperation in allowing this amendment to come to the floor today.
My colleagues are getting ready to hear a lot of numbers. They are getting ready to see a lot of charts; but in the end, facts are stubborn things.
The current base bill, as presented, if passing the way it does, will reduce the minimum guarantee in the States from 90.5 percent to a scope of 84 percent. The amendment presented today by me and a bipartisan group ensures that the minimum guarantee will remain at 90.5 percent of 93 percent, as it was allocated on scope under TEA 21. Those are the facts. That is what everybody needs to understand.
Do not let any chart with any separate group of assumptions lead my colleagues astray. They cannot make 90.5 percent of 84 percent more than 90.5 percent of 93 percent.
Secondly, some will say it is a donor/donee issue, and to an extent it is; but if the base bill passes as it is, it exacerbates the donor States. All the donor States are asking in this is to maintain where they were under the last highway reauthorization bill.
I hope my colleagues keep those facts in mind. Facts are stubborn things. This is about equity to our States.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Who seeks time in opposition?
Mr. LIPINSKI. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) is recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment; but for right now, I reserve the balance of my time until we get organized.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) and other colleagues in supporting this very important bipartisan amendment.
Without our amendment, highway users in Georgia and other States would lose billions of dollars. Already, right now, highway users in Georgia and other States, like California and Texas and Florida, are contributing billions of dollars to other States to help with their transportation needs. For example, in the previous transportation bill, Georgia contributed $1 billion to highway improvements to other States, at a time when we have growing unmet needs for congestion relief and access improvements of our own.
In my own district, for example, I represent five of the fastest growing counties in this country, with untold transportation needs. All of the interstate systems intersect in my district, and yet we gave $1 billion in highway improvements to other States.
We are not asking to change any of this. We do not mind helping other States. We just do not want to take a step backwards. We want to maintain the status quo, hold on to what we have, and this bipartisan amendment would do just that. It will prevent a loss of $500 million just for Georgia and similar large losses for other States.
Our amendment simply prevents a 93 percent to 84 percent reduction in scope of number of programs that fall under the minimum guarantee, the provision in the reauthorization bill that guarantees that each State receives at least 90.5 cents for every dollar its motorists send to Congress through their gas and other taxes. Governors in California and Texas and Florida are not wrong. We must not take a step backwards.
I urge my colleagues to please pass this important bipartisan amendment.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Lipinski) for yielding me time.
I have been here 10 years, Mr. Chairman, and I want to say that the other day in our Republican Conference, where this was discussed, the most eloquent talk on behalf of a State was given by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) on behalf of the citizens of the State of Georgia, and Georgians should be proud of his representation as well as the other Members who are sponsoring this amendment.
{time} 0945
Having said that, I think he is wrong, however. I am glad he brought up charts because I have three charts that have been given to me over the last couple of days. One chart prepared by the gentleman from Georgia's group shows that Ohio is getting $359 million more over the life of the bill, the 6-year bill; I have a chart that was prepared by the gentleman from Illinois that shows we are getting $225,000 more; and I have a chart prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation that shows that we are losing $128 million.
Facts are stubborn things. Charts each make different assumptions in this particular debate. That is why the committee has always had the position that, look, the problem with this bill is we need more money. We need more money so we can fix the donor/donee State problem. We need more money so we can fix the distribution problem. But it cannot be fixed with this amendment. I would respectfully ask the sponsors who come from donor States, if the assumptions made under the DOT chart are right, Florida is losing $187 million and Georgia 28. If they happen to be right at the end of the day, then this is not going to be a good thing.
I would hope that the Members that are sponsoring this amendment standing up so valiantly for their States would let us try and work this out in a conference with the other body so we do come to a fair resolution and continue the growth that we had from ISTEA to TEA 21 and make TEA LU a bill that everybody can be proud of.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. The difference in the charts are the assumptions. In the chart in question, we met with FHWA this morning. They assume the same basis in allocating the charts. Therefore, the numbers change. Numbers are moving all around but 90.5 percent of 93 percent still beats the basis in TEA LU.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).
Mr. KELLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Isakson amendment. It is going to benefit all States, donor States and donee states; but I am going to limit my remarks right now to the donor States. Who are the donor States? The 25 donor States are shown here in blue, the largest of which happen to be Florida, Texas, and California. If you are from any one of these 25 donor States, you would be smart to vote for the Isakson amendment.
It would be absolutely crazy for you to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I will tell you why. If you vote for this amendment, your State will do just as good as it did under the old transportation bill. If you vote ``no'' on this amendment, your State, on average, will get 10 cents on the dollar less. For example, Florida goes from 86 cents down to 76 cents.
Some of you have said to me, I am going to make up the difference by getting one of these projects of national significance. Here is the flaw. The Transportation Committee does not even have a complete list of the projects of national significance. They do not know what they are. Miss Cleo does not know what they are. Nostradamus does not know what they are. You do not know what they are.
You might get one. Well, I might win an Academy Award. I might win a gold medal. I might actually keep my New Year's resolution and lose 30 pounds. It might happen. It probably will not happen. The one thing I know for sure is if you vote for Isakson, your State is going to get more.
You came here to represent your people. You came here to fight for your State. Do the right thing and vote ``yes'' on Isakson.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman from Georgia, as well as my colleague from Florida, the gentleman who just spoke. But I think the key issue on this amendment is the uncertainty of it. They have an analysis by the Federal Highway Administration. We have seen an analysis by the Federal Highway Administration and it is unclear. The Federal Highway Administration says that this amendment is going to cut funding in this bill by $3.7 billion, which means that many States would lose money. I think because of the uncertainty of it, as the gentleman from Ohio said, let us work in conference to fix this problem. There is not enough money in this bill. I think all of us are disappointed that we could not get more money into this bill to fix the donor/donee State problem. But, as I said, the uncertainty, the numbers that I show here, a State like California is going to lose $550 million; Illinois, $346 million; Texas, $275 million over the life of this bill.
Again, I come back to the uncertainty of this. Let the committee get into conference, let us try to work out our problems, but I would urge a ``no'' vote on this bill today because of that uncertainty. We are going to pass this thing and who knows what happens.
Let us work towards getting into conference, and I believe the chairman and the conferees will make the proper adjustments on this bill.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that we have a piece of legislation here that seems to divide our States and our Representatives from those States, but frankly this really is not a fair bill to many of our States.
When we bring appropriations bills to the floor, we do our very best, and I think people on both sides would agree, we do our best to make sure that we play fair with everybody in this Chamber. I have looked at the original bill, I have looked at the proposed amendments, I have looked at the manager's amendment; and all I can see is that taxpayers and the highway users in my State of Florida are not being treated fairly.
I understand that there are some very nice incentives in this bill for Florida and for other States that are supporting the gentleman from Georgia. My vote is not going to be bought off because there are some very nice projects in this bill for Florida. I am still going to vote for the amendment offered by Mr. Isakson. If we cannot pass Mr. Isakson's amendment, I will vote against the bill because it is not a fair piece of legislation for a large part of this country.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, some Members have argued that we should include portions of regional or national significance under minimum guarantee. These projects by definition are vital to the Nation as a whole and should not impact formula distribution to the States.
Let me give you a classic example. Whether you are on the west coast in Oregon or the east coast in the Port of New York-New Jersey, we have a problem. It is called the congestion in the hub in Chicago. You have got to do something. I want to put a lot of money in Chicago to solve that problem. Does that mean because we are dealing with a problem of national significance we should penalize Illinois and have it taken from its allocation? Of course not. This is a Nation. We are dealing as a Nation. We are not just dealing in little individual States.
When I look at this Isakson amendment, it is almost like a roll call of a who's-who of States. State after State would lose under this. Alabama, Alaska, California, Connecticut, it goes on and on and on.
Mr. Chairman, this does not make sense. We are a national legislative body, not a State legislative body. Let me tell the gentleman from Florida about fairness. I have the highest regard for him, but New Yorkers are not treated fair in so many different categories. I could make a persuasive argument. The gentleman treats us fair, I know it; but we send more than $20 billion to Washington than we get back. Do we complain? Of course we try to jimmy and work some things out to get a better distribution of funds, but the fact of the matter is we recognize we are part of a Federal system and we look at the Federal approach. This is one of the few programs that treats us well.
Let me praise the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for the outstanding manner in which they have handled this. But when all is said and done, this amendment, while well-intended, does damage to the national system; and I urge its opposition.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).
Mr. BURNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) for bringing this amendment. When Congress passed TEA 21, the folks in Georgia and the Nation breathed a sigh of relief. We all felt we were making progress toward receiving an equitable share of highway funding and the jobs that followed. The Congress at that time adopted a minimum guarantee of 90.5 percent of Federal fuel tax dollars. Unfortunately, this guarantee was applied to only about 93 percent of available funds, making our effective return somewhere between 84 and 87 percent. Not good, but we could live with it.
Unfortunately, it now appears that we are moving in the wrong direction. The current bill will drive the effective minimum rate down substantially because the rate of return is 90.5 percent, but it only applies to about 84 percent of highway dollars. Mr. Chairman, this is unacceptable. I represent one of the most neglected States and districts in the country. We must have a reasonable return on the taxes that we pay in motor fuel tax dollars.
I commend Chairman Young for working with us to achieve fairness and equity. I am sure that he will in conference continue to support fairness; but with all due respect, we cannot regress. I urge that you all vote for transportation fairness and the Isakson amendment.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The committee has worked a long, long time on this bill. Everyone would like to have more money, but because of the administration, we do not have more money. This bill is a very fair bill to every single State in the Union. It is really beyond my comprehension that there allegedly are people in States that are going to support this amendment whose States would lose tremendous amounts of money. I hear that there are people in California going to do it. That State would lose over
$282 million if they supported that amendment. I hear people from Florida talking about supporting this amendment. That State is going to lose $35 million if this amendment passes. My own State of Illinois, a donor State, would lose $140 million underneath this amendment passing. Iowa, $61 million; Kansas, $21 million; Louisiana, $31 million; Maine,
$25 million; Maryland, $84 million; Massachusetts, $34 million; Minnesota, $36 million; Mississippi, $14 million; Missouri, $27 million; Nebraska, $25 million; Nevada, $41 million. These are hundreds of millions of dollars.
The list goes on and on: New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin. All those States would be deprived of valuable transportation and infrastructure funds if this amendment passes. Conversely, the program we have set forth here is as fair as possible considering we wanted a bill at $375 billion and thanks to the White House we could only come in at $275 billion.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
Mr. CHOCOLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment simply about fairness. We can try to complicate this issue with all kinds of charts, all kinds of numbers, and all kinds of formulas; and we can all find a chart or a formula that is going to serve our particular opinion. But the bottom line is this: every State in the Nation sends money to the Federal gas tax trust fund and every State, for every dollar they send, they may get a little bit more or a little bit less back. But under TEA LU as it currently stands, every single State in this Union gets less of a minimum guarantee. As an example, the State of Indiana currently gets about 88 cents for every dollar we send in. Under TEA LU, we will get 76 cents back. But this is not about Indiana going backwards. This is about every single State in the Union going backwards with their minimum guarantee. There is no chart that can dispute that. There is no formula that can dispute that.
This amendment is simply about fairness, about no State going backwards and about staying where we are, so every State can get the minimum guarantee that they currently enjoy and not go backwards. That is why we need to pass this amendment, because it is about fairness for every single State in this Union.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It is quite clear with the dueling charts that are going on, there are very few, if any, Members of the assembly here who will actually know the impact on their States if this amendment is passed in terms of dollars and cents. But there are things that are very clear: one is that this has the effect of pulling the rug out from underneath the broadest coalition we have ever had developing infrastructure needs in this country. That would be tragic if all of a sudden we are going to be pitting the truckers versus the Sierra Club versus the bikers and the providers of concrete and asphalt and the historic preservationists. That would be wrong and it would have long-term, serious negative consequences for people that want a comprehensive approach to infrastructure.
I find no small amount of irony that for the people who are standing up in protest, the problem is it is self-inflicted. If we had before us the bill that the Senate passed overwhelmingly, that dedicates the trust fund balances, that does not rob money from transportation to deal with international corporate issues, we would have the resources available to put $3 billion for California, $2.5 billion for Texas,
$1.6 billion for New York, $1.5 billion for the State of Florida and
$1.1 billion for Georgia.
{time} 1000
What we have done is place impossible demands on the committee leadership to parse this out in ways that are unrealistic. And approving this amendment is illusory. It is not going to make it any simpler. It is going to make it harder. They are not going to know what they end up with, and they are going to be fraying this coalition.
But if the Members are really concerned about imbalance, look at metropolitan areas most of us serve, and look at how little they get back on the dollar. It is far less than the State donor-donee. It is more serious, and our constituents back home ought to hold us accountable for that.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, my dad used to tell me life is not fair, but we almost always get out of things what we put into them. Sadly, that is not true for the highway bill, but really it has never been. But in the last highway bill, Congress actually made States like my home State of Indiana get at least 90\1/2\ cents back on every dollar we paid at the pump in gasoline taxes. But this highway bill that we will consider today actually reduces that amount by about 10 cents on the dollar, for every State in the Union, as my friend from Indiana just said.
The Isakson amendment asks only this: Keep the 90\1/2\ cent minimum guarantee for every State in the union just the way it is. We are asking to keep the status quo. Let us keep things the way they are.
Life is not fair, but the way we use taxpayer dollars in the highway bill should be.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Isakson amendment, which would include high-priority projects as well as projects of national regional Significance within the minimum guarantee program.
Supporters of the amendment claim that by including these projects, which are really Member earmarks, in the minimum guarantee program, funding to States' core programs will be increased. The amendment, however, will actually hurt many States' core programs because Member projects are earmarked and thus not available for States to use on their existing capital plans. Under the existing legislation, California, for example, without the amendment will get its apportioned funds for use in its existing core programs plus the $1 billion it currently has in earmarks. Therefore, it makes no sense for Californians, for example, to vote for this amendment.
The amendment is also dangerous because to include projects of national significance in the minimum guarantee is to negate the entire program of projects for national significance. This category was established to fund projects that have a national significance and impact and that require a significant amount of funding. Eligible projects must be at least $500 million or 75 percent of the State's entire annual highway apportionment. If a project this size were counted against a State's allocation, the State would have virtually no money for its regular core program or existing capital plan. As a practical matter, no State would seek funding under this program.
The purpose of the program is to fund projects of national significance that normally would not get funded because of their multi-
State nature or their size. These projects may be necessary because of our national trade policy or to improve national security. It makes no sense to count these projects against a State's formula allocation.
The reality, of course, is that this amendment is offered because its supporters are upset about the minimum guarantee, that it does not rise from 90.5 percent immediately. This amendment will do nothing to address that concern and will in fact punish many States in the process.
I disagree with that position. I believe the minimum guarantee should stay where it is. But if they are upset that funds are allocated 90.5 percent, why would they want to put more programs under this formula? Why not allow all States to receive funds in addition to those allocated by formula? Including projects of national significance in the minimum guarantee certainly does not help them as it has nothing to do with the donor/donee issue. Under this amendment, neither the country as a whole nor any State would be able to benefit from this program, and the whole initiative which is of national significance would be rendered useless. The money would go to waste.
This amendment undercuts much of the progress made in the underlying TEA LU bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
There are a lot of figures that are running around this floor, but I can tell the Members that what comes to my mind is that figures do not lie, but liars can figure. I am not saying people are lying here, but I think this body is totally confused about what is going on.
Only ask yourself this one question: Is getting back 93 percent or applying the formula to 93 percent worse than applying it to 84 percent? Is 93 percent more than 84 percent? Under the Isakson amendment, every State would be guaranteed a higher level.
In Florida, we plugged these figures in. Florida will send $12 billion in Federal gas tax to Washington under this bill but receive back only $8.5 billion. That is not fair, and I can tell the Members right now, a lot of people who are listening to this debate are totally confused. But the fact is that the States of Florida, California, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Missouri are taking a whipping under this bill, and it is not fair.
All we are asking for is equity. We are not asking to get all our dollars back. We wish we could. We are not asking to get them all back. All we are saying is, do not hurt us more than we are already hurt under existing law.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
(Mr. SIMMONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of discussion about this amendment and whether it is fair or unfair. I oppose the amendment because I believe the amendment is unfair to Connecticut.
The issue is, what do we get back from the Federal Government? If we look at the aggregate number of dollars that Connecticut gets back from the Federal Government, for every dollar submitted it is 65 cents, 65 cents. That is the second lowest return in the Nation. Florida gets a buck plus. Georgia gets a buck plus. So if we look at the aggregate dollars, there is a whole new picture here.
Why does Connecticut get more transportation dollars than some of the other States? It is very simple. Because if we look at the interstate highway system, the roads converge on New England; and if we look at Connecticut, the New England roads converge on Connecticut. It is a tiny State with six interstates. We need those dollars to support those roads. They are bumper to bumper, not just every weekend or in the summer. They are bumper to bumper every day. And that is why we get more transportation dollars.
The committee compromise is fair. It is a compromise. People do not like compromises. Nobody likes a compromise. But the committee compromise is fair. Vote against the Isakson amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I submit the following document for the Record.
CONEG,
Washington, DC, March 30, 2004.Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: As the House prepares to act on H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (TEA-LU), the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) urges the House to maintain its support for the proven needs-based structure of highway and transit programs that have resulted in improved conditions and safety of the nation's highways, bridges and public transit systems.
The Governors appreciate the work of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to provide the House with a bill that maintains the effective and proven program and funding structure of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). In an environment of severe fiscal constraints, the Committee faced difficult choices, and in H.R. 3550, seeks to balance the many diverse interests and demands placed upon the program and available funding. We recognize that addressing all these interests will require more robust funding for federal surface transportation programs.
As the House now takes up H.R. 3550, we urge you to:
Hold firm against any additional changes in highway formulas or transit funding that could adversely impact the core highway programs and transit funding. Additional reductions in core highway programs could undermine flexibility and impede states' efforts to maintain and improve their transportation infrastructure, address congestion and respond to the particular needs of the communities they serve. Equally important, a loss of core highway program funds could hinder a state's ability to move forward with plans and projects already underway in our states, and lessens the immediate job creation and economic development benefits of the pending transportation investment. At the same time, we strongly urge you to keep high-priority projects and projects of national and regional significance out of the ``minimum guarantee'' calculation.
Protect the transit program: We urge you to maintain the Committee's actions to protect and increase public transit funding and largely maintain the current transit program structure, including the traditional 80/ 20 split of Highway Trust Fund revenues between the Highway Account and the Mass Transit Account. We welcome the increased investment you have placed in our nation's rural transit systems, and urge you to continue to invest in the grwoth of our nation's urban and most heavily used transit systems. Continued growth to support the critical, existing fixed-guideway modernization program (Rail-Mod) and the bus and bus facilities programs, as well as support for the rural, elderly and disabled transit programs are vital to providing essential mobility for individuals in communities large and small across the nation.
Maintain the firewalls and funding guarantees for highways and public transit. We appreciate the Committee's strong commitment to preserving the firewalls and General Fund guarantees for highways and public transit, and we urge the House to continue this commitment. Over the years, these mechanisms have proven successful in providing the funding predictability that all states need to meet their transportation needs. It is essential that both the firewalls and the General Fund guarantees for transit be maintained.
We stand ready to work with you to advance a surface transportation program that addresses these important programs and allows all the states to work together to address the critical transportation needs of the nation.
Sincerely,Mitt Romney,
GONEG Chairman, Governor of Massachusetts.John Baldacci,
CONEG Vice-Chairman, Governor of Maine.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), a real leader on this amendment.
(Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, under today's law, every State, every single State, is guaranteed 90.5 percent of 93 percent of the transportation budget. And the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure who, by the way, has been wonderful to work with, has said that he would like to work to improve that number, that he believes that the donor States should be a little bit improved. But the problem is that the bill that is in front of us today does not improve it. It makes it worse. It is no longer like current law that every State will get 93 percent of the transportation budget. No. Every State goes down to 90 percent of 84 percent of the entire budget.
I am not the smartest guy in the world, but nobody can tell me that 90 percent of 93 is worse than 90 percent of 84. Not even in Washington can we make those numbers make sense. So this is a reality. If we believe that the donor States are paying too much, we should not hurt them worse.
Let us be very clear about what the amendment does. The amendment does not do what all of us want it to do, make it better for the donor States. All the amendment does is keep it to current law so that every single State has exactly the same formula that we are living under today. Is that good enough? I do not think so. But, please, what makes no sense is to hurt every single donor State to provide projects that we keep hearing about of national significance that are not in the bill. It is a theory. It is not real. Those projects are not in the bill. So we do not know what we are buying, but every single donor State knows what it is losing. That is not fair.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the last speaker was talking about the current law. Just a little history for the body. Up until the Senate managed to overrule the House 6 years ago and took the Members' high-priority projects and placed them inside the formula funding, the House of Representatives, and the Senate up until last time, has always kept the Members' projects outside of the bill.
It was easy enough to accept that the last time around, because underneath the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) we raised the amount of money going into the Highway Trust Fund, the amount of money available for highways and transit, very significantly so those Members' projects could be included within the formula. Unfortunately, we are not in that kind of position today.
Secondly, the gentleman mentioned the projects of national significance. I know it is very true that it is not a delineation of what is going to be in there, but there has been $6.6 billion set aside for these projects.
We on the committee have talked to a number of people who have very significant projects they would like to put in there, but we decided not to make that decision until we get to conference so that in the event the Senate would like to add some additional money to the projects of national significance or if we can get the administration, along with the Senate, to increase the amount of money going into this bill, we will be able to address more needs of this Chamber.
I have been in this body for 22 years. So often discussions such as this on the floor are simply discussions of people wanting to get more into the bill because they are unhappy with the bill. But in most cases the committee position has been sustained, and I certainly hope and I believe it will be sustained today because this bill is the best bill for the country.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for bringing forth this crucial amendment.
We learned overnight that more than $1 billion was added in earmarks to this project. This bill is out of control, and unless we have the Isakson amendment, there is simply no semblance of equity to this bill.
If this amendment fails, we have only one recourse and that is to ask the President, Mr. President, please veto this bill. Please veto this bill. This Congress is out of control, and it is in desperate needs of some adult supervision.
With that, I ask for support for the Isakson amendment.
{time} 1015
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Georgia for yielding me time and for his leadership on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an important step toward restoring equity to this process. The growth in America, the demands on our infrastructure and the demands on our roads have moved to the South and Southwest, and this formula does not reflect that.
There is $50 billion in new money in this bill for highways over the last one, and yet the growth States move backwards in funding. That is simple math that is indisputable and cannot be explained but can be corrected with the Isakson amendment.
If the projects were so nationally significant, why will you not tell us where they are? If they are so nationally significant, why are they not in the bill?
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman of the committee for his hard work on this bill. It is very difficult to allocate these funds. He has tried to allocate them as fairly as possible. The difficulty is the donor States such as my State want a guarantee that they will get a certain amount of money back, and that is precisely what this amendment does.
The State of Michigan over the years has contributed $1.71 billion more to the Federal highway funds than it has received back. They are 48th in the list of 50 States as to how much we get back from the Federal Government compared to the amount of money we send there. This is a very sore point in Michigan.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will guarantee a rate of return for my State, and that is extremely important for my State, to receive that guarantee.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Isakson amendment, which would seek to simply elevate the scope of the minimum guarantee from 84 percent in TEA LU up to 93 percent, the level in TEA 21. Basically, for the State of Georgia this means instead of getting 76 cents back on every dollar, the citizens of Georgia would get 84 cents back on every dollar. That is our money, and it is only fair.
I strongly support the Isakson amendment.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), a distinguished member of the committee and a good friend on this issue.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to serve with some great people on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, led by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). I want to take this opportunity to thank him, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and others who have worked on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very difficult issue, because this decides how we divide our transportation dollars that come to Washington.
There are certain facts in this debate, and you just heard one of them. There is a substantial increase in the amount of highway money, in fact, some 25 percent increase in this bill. We have been asked to really leave the final decision of division of the funds up to the conference.
I have great faith in the chairman, I have great faith in the ranking member, the Speaker, the majority leader and others who have expressed their commitment to resolve this fairness issue, and that is what it is, in conference. But this amendment goes to the core of the problem, and that is the distribution. Rather than to leave it to chance, this Isakson amendment does in fact guarantee a substantial and fair increase to every State.
Now I know that we need projects of national significance, but I will tell you, I come from a State that has many projects of State and community significance, and they will be left out if we do not address this from a fairness standpoint and address it in the bill now, so every State, every State, benefits.
Look at the calculations. I know figures have been floating out there, but every State will benefit by the Isakson amendment. When we go to conference, we will be in a better position to address this fairness issue.
Mr. Chairman, I know the leadership has done their best to resolve this, I know they have committed to solve it in conference, but, again, the fact is in dollars and cents to each and every State, and particularly those States that have suffered, we need to resolve this and adopt this amendment. That will do the job.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for the consideration of Members.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly urge a no vote on the gentleman's amendment.
Every State in the Union gets an increase in Federal dollars in this bill. The distribution of all these Federal dollars depends on highway traffic on Federal highways. When one State says they gave $12 billion through the Federal gasoline tax and excise tax, that is true, but all that money did not come from that particular State. That money comes from people that transit all over the Nation.
The gentleman from Connecticut talked about several interstate highways intersecting in the small State of Connecticut, so their proportion needs to be dependent on the Federal highway traffic on Federal highways.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I just wish to address the two concerns that have been raised by those who are critical of this amendment. Those issues are time and money.
They raise the suggestion that all we need now is more time and more money. I simply remind them of the fact that this committee has had, quite honestly, literally months, over a year, to work on it. I would ask for a show of hands. Who would ever expect we would get a better bill out of committee on this? I do not think time will solve the issue.
The other portion is money. Those on the other side also object, all we need is more money. I would remind them of the fact, if we could get more money, where will that money come from? All those people who are donor States please raise your hand, because it will be coming from us, the donor States.
Time and money is not the solution.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The gentleman is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) is a good man with a difficult job, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is a good man with a difficult job, and there are 433 other Members of this House who are good men and women with a difficult job. But fair is fair, and facts are facts.
The money that flows in that we are talking about spending today is a user fee based on the use of roads in each of the States. It is only right that States get back at least a semi-equitable portion of the use of their roads that generated the revenue that this Congress has dedicated.
There are no losers in the base bill or in this bill in aggregate dollars, because there is more money being spent, but there are big losers in terms of States in this country who already are donor States and are being reduced to a lower percentage.
I do not have the luxury of promising designated projects, and I do not know where ultimately they will or will not go, and I am not complaining about that. I am not a chairman, and I am not senior. But I will tell you one thing: The people of Georgia elected me, and they sent me here to represent them, and they should understand and expect a basic minimum guarantee that is at least the same as they have been used to.
Fair is fair, and facts are facts. There are a lot of loose numbers floating around, because, very frankly, we do not know where all the numbers are. But there is one irrefutable fact: 90.5 percent of 93 percent beats 90.5 percent of 84 percent, no matter whether you use new math, old math or trigonometry.
This is about equity, this is about fairness, this is about representing the people who sent us to this Congress.
I am grateful for the opportunities that have been afforded all these Members, from Indiana, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, Arizona, all over the country. This is not a provincial issue. This is a people's issue. This is about doing what is right.
We have great leadership on our committee. They have done a good job. But this bill needs improvement. The legacy for users in America should not be an inequitable distribution of the money they sent to Washington because of the use of their roads.
Fair is fair, and facts are facts. I urge a yes vote on the Isakson amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) has 4\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the full committee.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his management on our side. It is splendid work.
Again, I express my great appreciation and admiration for our chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
Mr. Chairman, we had a very thoughtful debate here, and it is maybe one of the better hours of this body. There has been no haranguing and no questioning of motives or of spirit, and that is good.
But last night I received this Dear Colleague from the gentleman from Georgia, which does make rather a amazing claim, that the Isakson amendment would keep the TEA LU highway program at $207 billion and adjust the formulas, with a claim that if the adjustments are made, every State would get more money.
Well, the gentleman from Alaska has produced a chart that shows that every State loses under that formulation.
I will say it again: The claim is TEA LU has $207 billion for the highway program. The Isakson amendment has $207 billion of grants and claims that every State gets more money.
Well, that is pretty slick math. I just heard a reference to trigonometry. I do not know if you go into algebraic formulations, but it does not work. Trying to make it work has resulted in an apples-to-
oranges claim.
I have been at this highway transit issue for about 40 years, since I started up here as a staff person. My predecessor was one of the five coauthors of the Interstate Highway Program and the Highway Trust Fund.
Not every State gets everything back that it puts into the Highway Trust Fund. The idea is that we are a mobile society. People travel from one coast to the other, from the North to the South, as the gentleman from Maryland just referenced a little bit ago, and the idea is we all help each other.
The problem with the Dear Colleague and with the claim of benefiting everybody is that it does not credit the States with any portion of the
$6.6 billion mega-project program, and that is not right. Mega-project funding will go to the States. We are not specifying which States, who will get it, how it goes out. That will be done under a distribution that will be made by a fair and equitable process to determine net regional and net national benefits from projects that unlock congestion knots in this country. So when you add the $6 billion, every State gets more.
Now, who gets what? Under the highway funding of TEA LU, Florida gets
$751,632,870 more. Georgia gets $450,800,700 more. Texas gets
$1,728,467,545 more. Every State gets more under TEA LU. Every State would get vastly more if we had this bill at the $375 billion level which we introduced.
{time} 1030
The issue is not percentages; do not tinker around with that. Look at the net national benefits.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, our national motto, e pluribus unum, ``out of many, one,'' it is not e pluribus pluribus, ``out of many, many.'' We are a Nation, an inclusive Nation. Those dollars that Georgia and Florida claim make them donor States come from States all along the eastern seaboard and from the Midwest. That is what we are about, one Nation, benefiting everybody. Vote for TEA LU, vote down Isakson.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the Isakson amendment because it attempts to maintain the status quo for all the donor States by including earmarks and Projects of National and Regional Significance in the SCOPE of programs covered in the Minimum Guarantee program.
In TEA-21, 93 percent of the programs were included in the Minimum Guarantee, including the High Priority Projects. In TEA-LU, as written, the SCOPE is reduced to 84 percent of the programs. For Florida, that means $860 million in lost guaranteed funds over 6 years. This would be a huge step backwards.
Mr. Chairman, it's simple math. H.R. 3550 keeps the equity guarantee at 90.5 percent, but reduces the coverage of the guarantee to a smaller piece of the total pie. This will cause Florida and other States to lose hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Isakson amendment requires no additional funding. This amendment simply asks that we keep things the way they were in TEA-21. I urge my donor States colleagues to support this amendment, for the sake of their State.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendments offered by my good friend Mr. Isakson to address the backwards slide in minimum guarantee that this transportation reauthorization bill would impose on a number of States--including my home State of Georgia.
Simply put, previous transportation bills have asked the hard-
working folks in Northeast Georgia's 9th District to send more money to Washington . . . and see less money find its way back.
But this bill (H.R. 3550, TEA-LU), asks those same hard-working folks to send even more money to Washington . . . and see even fewer of their tax dollars make their way back to Northeast Georgia to improve the roads and conduct essential transportation improvements . . . and that's just as wrong as the day is long.
Consider the numbers. Under current law, every State is guaranteed a 90.5 percent return on each dollar of gas taxes it submits to the Federal government. And when the 1998 TEA-21 language became the law of the land, 93 percent of programs were included in the minimum guarantee, including high priority projects and projects of national and regional significance that are important to Georgians and others from States who pay so much more than ever comes back.
But under this bill, under TEA-LU, States' core funding programs would be decreased from a 90.5 percent share to only 84 percent of the programs. Don't forget, this includes ``High Priority Projects and Projects of Regional Significance.''
For the average State, this reduction in scope will result in the loss of $300 million over the lifespan of the six-year legislation. In fact, the State of Georgia could stand to lose between $500 and $600 million.
Mr. Chairman, I have stood on this floor time and time again to preach the need for this Congress, and this Federal government, to exercise fiscal responsibility and live within our means--much like Georgians and all Americans do every single day. I also clearly recognize the need to meet this Nation's critical transportation infrastructure funding needs. Taking money from Peter to pay Paul, accomplishes neither objective . . . and in fact, only seriously jeopardizes the future infrastructure needs for millions of Americans.
Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely imperative to include high priority projects as well as projects of regional and national significance in the Scope formula for H.R. 3550. Make no mistake, we can do better . .
. but by at least returning to a 90.5 percent minimum guarantee on 93 percent of the programs addressed in the Transportation Reauthorization Act, this Congress rights a major wrong contained in TEA-LU.
I urge my colleagues to do just that by supporting the Isakson amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be postponed.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Shaw) having assumed the chair, Mr. Nethercutt, Chairman pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3550) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________
