Summary:

All articles in House section

BUILDING EFFICIENT SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND EQUITY ACT OF 1998
(House of Representatives - April 01, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H1885-H2030] BUILDING EFFICIENT SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND EQUITY ACT OF 1998 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 405 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2400. {time} 1340 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 consideration of the bill (H.R. 2400) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hastings of Washington in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control one hour, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) will each control 15 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, today we bring to the floor of the House historic legislation, legislation to rebuild America so that we have a 21st Century transportation system. In the 21st Century, from Seattle to Miami, from New York to California, America is growing and prospering, but our infrastructure is crumbling. There are two fundamental principles in the bill we bring to the floor today. The first is to put the trust back in the Transportation Trust Funds. It is to restore honesty in budgeting. Every time an American drives up to the gas pump and pays his or her 18.4-cent gas tax for every gallon of tax, that money goes into the Highway Trust Fund and Americans have the right to believe that the money in the trust fund is going to be spent to improve transportation. In fact, that is the way it was, until in the mid-1960's President Johnson got the idea that by not spending the money, he could help fund the Vietnam War. Indeed, it was Eisenhower and the Congress which made a Contract with America, and that contract was you pay your gas tax, and that money is spent to improve highways. Unfortunately, in the past several years, we have had a fraud perpetrated on the American people. It has not happened. We have had abate and switch. You pay your gas tax, but the money in the trust fund does not get spent. To the tune, there is $23 billion in that Highway Trust Fund today. Let me share with Members something that a very well-known American said when he was Governor of a State just a few years ago. He said this on television: ``The Congress took that money from us under a solemn contract to turn right around and give it back to the States to be spent on roads and highways. Instead, they are hoarding that money up there, and the only reason is to make the Federal deficit look smaller than it is. It is just wrong. It is wrong as it can be, and we ought to stop it. It is in violation of the solemn contract the national government has to the people who pay the tax.'' Governor Bill Clinton. So I say now to the Clinton Administration, join us. Keep your word. Help us unlock the trust fund so that money can go where it is supposed to go, to improve America's transportation infrastructure. We swallowed hard in the committee to get where we are today on a couple of very, very important compromises. We agreed that from this point forward, we would not count the interest in the trust fund. Over the life of this bill, that means $15 billion in debt reduction for our country. And we swallowed hard and said that approximately $10 billion of the $23 billion in the balance will be returned. {time} 1345 Put those two figures together and you get about $25 billion in reduced debt for the Federal Government, an amount which approximates the increase in spending that this bill proposes. We only spend the revenue coming into this Trust Fund from this point forward. We only spend the money paid for by the American people in the gas tax and the related transportation taxes. Indeed, the projection is we come in over the 6-year period about $3 billion under the revenue coming in. I would be quick to say, if there is no need to spend this money, we certainly should not spend it, nor should we let it accumulate. We should reduce the taxes. So that brings me to, really, the second fundamental principle: That is, what are the needs for investment in infrastructure for America? I suggest [[Page H1886]] that the needs are very clear; indeed, they are overwhelming. Twenty- seven percent of the highways in America are in poor condition. The average American is stuck 26 hours out of every year in traffic. That does not really tell the whole story. The average American living in one of our big cities is stuck in traffic, bumper-to-bumper traffic, over 50 hours in a year, more than a workweek in a year. Indeed, on our highways, 42,000 Americans are killed every year. Of that 42,000, 9,000 are kids killed on our highways. The experts tell us that 30 percent of highway fatalities are caused by bad roads. That is 12,000 Americans of the 42,000 being killed on our highways. Indeed, it is about 2,700 kids being killed on our highways as a result of bad roads. That is more than a commercial airplane crashing every day. What outrage we would have in this country if we had an airplane going down every day. In addition to those fatalities, 3.5 million Americans are injured on our highways every year. Get this. For every baby born in America today, six out of every ten babies born will be injured in an automobile accident during his lifetime, some of them more than once, if we do not change these accident rates. We can change them. In fact, something I do not talk about very much, but it is appropriate today, I think. Seventeen years ago I had my neck broken in an automobile accident. I was a passenger in a head-on collision. I had my seatbelt on. They tell me I would have been a dead duck if I did not. But I am one of the lucky ones. They put three pins in my neck and a bone out of my hip, and I am okay. I am here. I am alive. I am lucky. But 42,000 Americans every year are not so lucky. Nine thousand kids every year are not so lucky. I would wager that there is hardly anybody here in the Chamber today, or in our viewing audience, who has not had a loved one or a friend who has been killed or seriously injured in an automobile accident. What is the cost of a life? We cannot really put a price tag on it, but what we do know is that with the investment made in this bill over the life of this bill, the experts tell us we can cut fatalities by 4,000 people a year. It sounds like a lot. Actually, it is less than 10 percent of the fatality rate. It is doable. But do we want to cut the number in half, 2,000 lives a year? What is the value we put on a life? This bill will save lives. This bill will give our country a productivity boost, an economic boost. This bill will create jobs. For every $1 billion invested in highways, 42,500 jobs are created. Where is the support for this bill? It is not just here in the Congress, although I must tell the Members how thrilled I was to see the overwhelmingly positive vote we got just a few minutes ago on the rule for this bill. If Members would listen to the naysayers, we would have thought we would have squeaked through, at best. Instead, when the vote came, it was six to one overwhelmingly in support of the rule for this bill. Who are the supporters of this bill? It is not just us. All 50 governors have endorsed this bill. The League of Cities, the mayors have endorsed this bill. The counties have endorsed this bill. The State legislatures have endorsed this bill. Environmentalists have endorsed this bill. Safety groups have endorsed this bill. Labor, the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce, what a pair, have both endorsed this legislation. And, yes, the AAA, representing millions of the motoring public. Why have they supported this bill? Why do we have this extraordinary, broad, bipartisan support across America? Here is what the bill does: It unlocks the Transportation Trust Fund and says, from this point forward the revenue coming into the Trust Fund can be spent on transportation improvements. Do not believe this baloney that we somehow break the budget, that we somehow create a deficit. Not a penny can be spent if, indeed, the money is not there in the Trust Fund to be spent. Not a penny can be spent if we do not come back to this House with offsets from conference with the Senate. So it cannot bust the budget. Indeed, it can only spend the revenues flowing into the Trust Fund paid for by the motoring public. That is not all this does. This revises the formulas for the States by which they get their money in a much fairer way. We throw out the old formula, which by the way is based in part on some 1919 statistics, if Members can believe that. We throw that aside, and we create a much fairer formula based on transportation need as well as population. We raise the minimum allocation for each State to 95 percent, including all formula funds; and, for the first time, we include the projects in the minimum calculation. We also say that the donor States, since they are the ones putting up most of the money, the donor States get preference in discretionary grants. Beyond that, we recognize the need for more flexibility. There are those who argue we should give the program back to the States. We believe that goes too far, but we acknowledge the States and the cities should have much more flexibility, and we put it in this bill. In this bill we provide that, in every category going back, the States and cities can shift up to 50 percent of the money in that category into any other category, based on the State or city need. There are two modifications to that. We want to protect the environment, and so we provide that in CMAQ and enhancements the States must spend at least as much as they have been previously spending, but in the increased money, 50 percent of that can be flexed to other categories, should the States and the localities so choose. Beyond that, we recognize the national interest. Those who talk about just give it all back to the States I think must be living in 1920 instead of 1998. Interestingly, there is a greater Federal interest today to tie our country together than there has ever been. Why? Because we have more interstate travel than we have ever had. I love to refer to Oklahoma City as an example. Out there, you have two interstates that cross, 35 and 40. They were built to carry 60,000 vehicles a day. They are carrying 120,000 vehicles a day. But, to me, that is not the most interesting figure. To me, the most interesting figure is that 60 percent of the license plates on those vehicles are out-of-State license plates. It is not an Oklahoma problem. It is a national problem. Up in Seattle, coming out of the great port of Seattle-Tacoma, over 50 percent of the product coming in from Asia is shipped to Chicago and east. With tongue in cheek, I said they should change the name from the Port of Seattle to the Port of Chicago, the point being it is not a Washington State problem, it is a national problem. Across America today, 64 percent of truck traffic is interstate. There is a greater need to tie our country together to make sure that the national interest is protected, as well as State and local interest. That is why we bring this balanced bill to the floor. We also move some general fund transportation spending into the Trust Fund. We acknowledge that it is the Transportation Trust Fund that should be spending the money, so we do that. We also toughen up safety standards. We provide incentives to toughen the drunk driving laws. We say that .08 is important, and we provide incentives to the States to put .08 in their State laws. But we do not want to have an unfunded mandate. We hope the States will do it. We give them an incentive to do it. On the subject of projects, which it seems the media and the opponents, few though they are, have focused so much on projects, only 5 percent of the funds in this bill go to congressional high-priority projects. Stop and think about it. Eight percent of all the money in this bill goes back to the States. Seven percent goes downtown to the Secretary of Transportation. The last time I checked, angels in heaven did not make the decisions and are not making the decisions as to where to build highways and transit systems. It is a political process. There is nothing wrong with the States, the Governors, the legislators having 88 percent of the money to decide how it is going to be spent, or the Secretary having 7 percent of the pot. We think it is not unreasonable, in fact, it is very reasonable, to say that the Members of Congress who have to cast the tough votes on this legislation [[Page H1887]] should be able to recommend to our committee what projects are most important in their district, and we limit it to only 5 percent of the pot. In addition to that, when we hear those saying, well, it is the same old way it used to be done, that simply is not true. We have a 14-point vetting process where these projects must meet the standard, including support from the Secretary of Transportation in their home States, or their mayors, if it is in an MPO area. Let me emphasize that this tough 14-point vetting program was something that was actually proposed and put into effect by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Nick Joe Rahall), a Democrat. So this is bipartisan. It is something that makes a lot of sense; and, indeed, it is something that should be done. Further, let me emphasize, when we hear people saying, well, if you eliminate the projects you save money, Mr. Speaker, we do not save a penny. The money, if there are no projects, simply goes back to the States or downtown. It will be spent, but it will either be the faceless, nameless bureaucrats downtown or in State government or the Governors or the State legislators who will be spending the money. I do not know how many Members I have had come to me and say, for example, my State government is all Republican, and I am a Democrat. I do not get anything in my district, so I need a high-priority project. Or, conversely, my State is all Democrat; and, as a Republican, I do not get anything unless I have a high-priority project. Who knows better what is most important in their district than the Members of Congress from that district? In fact, I would respectfully suggest there is a bit of arrogance in those who say that somehow they know better what is important in their congressional districts than Members know. Indeed, I would suggest that if Members do not know what is really important to people in their congressional district, they are not going to be here very long. Let me emphasize that, while we have some disagreement in this bill, I have the greatest respect particularly for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. John Kasich), who is not a hypocrite and who said he does not want to see tax revenue spent on transportation. {time} 1400 I disagree with him. I disagree with him fundamentally. But he is straight. This is his position. He has a right to take that position. And he also, in the process, has not sent us letters requesting projects for his district while at the same time saying he opposes projects. He is not a hypocrite. He is an honorable person. Mr. Chairman, I had to take the well last week and to release and put in the Congressional Record letters from several Members of Congress who are castigating the projects but who have asked for multimillion dollar projects in their own congressional districts. Now, as hard as that is for Members to believe, it is in the Record. It is there for Members to see. Last week I challenged any Member to come forward and say that I had offered a project in exchange for his vote or, conversely, had threatened to take a project away if he did not vote with us. Nobody has responded to that challenge. Why? Because nobody can, because that is not the way we do business. Not only in this bill, but never in my career in the Congress have I ever made such a threat to a Member of Congress. So it is very regrettable that the people who on the one hand seem so self-righteous also are dealing very loosely with the truth. Maybe there is a little inconsistency there that I hope one might recognize. In fact, there is a great line in the book, ``The Hawaiians'' which I will clean up and paraphrase, which is, ``How I envy the pious. They can be such hypocrites and never even know it.'' Well, the good news is we have dealt fairly with every Member in this body. I must say I was surprised to see the gentleman from Delaware, my good friend, last week holding a press conference because he does not like our bill, calling it highway robbery. He is my good friend. We serve together on the Select Committee on Intelligence. Indeed, we are members of other organizations here on the Hill. But what short memories we seem to have. It was just last year that the Delaware delegation pushed through $2.3 billion for Amtrak. In fact it was described by some as one of the most bizarre, backhanded ways of funding a program that has ever been witnessed around here. But I did not take the floor and call it the ``great train robbery.'' No, I supported what they were trying to do because we were able to reform Amtrak, because Amtrak is important, not to some Members but to the gentleman from Delaware and the Members from the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak is important to them, so we supported that and we supported the reform of Amtrak. I must tell my colleagues that the reform bill spells out that those reforms must be accomplished by June 1, or all money for Amtrak stops, ceases, zero. I must also tell my colleagues that there are indications that those reforms may not be met by June 1, which means they will have to be back here on the floor again asking for forgiveness for Amtrak legislation or there will not be any money for Amtrak. Well, it seems to me that it might be a little more difficult next time around to get that kind of forgiveness for Amtrak. So I hope that those who sometimes seem to feel that nobody's cause but their own is worthwhile might take a little broader look at the transportation needs all across America. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge is another case in point. A billion dollars. We read so much in the local papers about the importance of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. Let me tell my colleagues there are over 30 interstate reconstruction projects, all of which cost more than a billion dollars. So while the Woodrow Wilson Bridge may well be important to the region here, there are other projects all across America which cost just as much on the interstate system, the highest priority system, and which are just as important to other Americans across this country. So I hope that, again, those who seem to see nothing of virtue in anything but their own particular interest might broaden their horizons just a bit. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues who know me best know I am not exactly a raving left-wing liberal spender. In fact the American Conservative Union gave me a 100 percent rating last year. I slipped in my NFIB rating. I only got a 97. I am not a big spender; I am a fiscal conservative. But there is a fundamental difference between spending tax dollars to build assets and pouring money down a rat hole. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I would say to my conservative Republican colleagues, look at the legacy of our party. It was Abraham Lincoln who in the midst of the Civil War signed the papers to create the first transcontinental railroad and who strongly supported Henry Clay's American system for capital improvements, for internal improvements. It was Teddy Roosevelt, the Panama Canal. George Will, the wonderful columnist, wrote a column a few months ago in which he observed that some conservatives today, had those same conservatives been back there with Teddy Roosevelt, probably would have voted against the Panama Canal. Well, I would like to think not, but it does not end with Teddy Roosevelt. Eisenhower, the father of the interstate system. Mr. Chairman, do my colleagues know who Eisenhower's floor manager was in the United States Senate to pass the interstate system? Prescott Bush, the father of President George Bush. To my conservative colleagues I say we have a legacy here of building America and today is the day we have the opportunity to do it. Today is the day we have the opportunity to put honesty back in budgeting. To spend only the trust fund money that is coming in. To save lives. To remove congestion and to increase productivity. The revenue exists. Let me close by sharing with my colleagues something that Stephen Ambrose, the historian, wrote in a book that just came out recently. It is a wonderful book entitled ``Citizen Soldiers.'' It is a book about the soldiers of America who in World War II slogged their way through Europe to win victory for our country and for the allies. He wrote in the conclusion of his wonderful book about those World War [[Page H1888]] II veterans when they came home, and here is what he said about them: These were the men who built modern America. They wanted to construct. They built the interstate highway system, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the suburbs so scorned by the sociologists but so successful with the people, and much more. So let us on a bipartisan basis in this Chamber today, let us in our time be the builders of a better America as we move into a new and exciting 21st century, so that our children's children 50 years from now might be able to look back and say: See, this they did for us. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, 42 years ago in this Chamber a Democratic Congress, united with a Republican President, launched a new experiment in transportation, one that would prove to be enormously successful in improving America's mobility and expanding its economy and moving transportation from border to border and coast to coast in a way that never had been accomplished before. Today we stand at the beginning of a new century and a new millennium. The legislation we bring to the floor today takes us beyond the vision of the interstate system and beyond the vision that was created in ISTEA in 1991 and to a new century, a new millennium, a new investment with renewed vigor in a future America. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) on the extraordinary job he has accomplished of leading us through the thicket of conflicting issues, values, ideas, demands, interests and pressures to do the right thing for America. He traced the evolution of the transportation system, of this legislation, in a very heartfelt, deeply sensitive and deeply committed way just a moment ago. His words are a measure for all time. What we do in this legislation is not just to continue but to extend beyond where we have been in our transportation mix of the last 42 years. Mr. Chairman, we continue the investment in America that is the fundamental driving force for this transportation sector, which is 10 percent of our gross domestic product. We continue the programs of this country that we initiated in ISTEA that have been so enormously successful. We continue the environmental stewardship. We address safety and, indeed, had we not addressed safety with the interstate highway program in 1956, we would be killing 110,000 people on America's highways today. We provide continued equity in our transportation program for minorities for labor, for construction labor, and for the States through our distribution formula. This is a bill that is good for all America, for all time, to take us into that next century. Not a bridge of fiber optic cable, but a bridge built on concrete, asphalt, steel and goodwill and good vision and a good sense of direction for America. Transportation means economic growth, means mobility, and it means opportunity for America. That is what this legislation is all about. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering legislation that, perhaps more than any bill we will consider this Congress, touches the lives of each and every constituent of each and every Member of this House. Mr. Chairman, until something goes wrong, we often overlook the impact that transportation has on our daily lives. No matter who we are or where we live, we rely on an efficient and safe transportation network. Whether we live in an urban area where transit provides a way to get to and from work; whether we farm land in a rural area and need to get crops to market quickly; whether we own a business that needs to truck in materials and get finished goods out over the roads; whether we are a young mother worrying about safely driving our young children to school each day; or whether we load up the family and go down the highway on our annual family vacation in Disney World or the Grand Canyon, we need a good transportation system in the United States for daily commutes, to transport freight around the country, and to provide opportunities for tourism and for recreation. Transportation is something that we use every day, and it provides a safe and efficient way of getting around and moving goods, and it is something that our constituents expect. Mr. Chairman, today we have an opportunity to pass legislation that truly does provide tangible, real benefits for all Americans. Some have tried to attack the bill before us based on the funding levels and budget implications of authorizations for projects in various Members' districts. But those critics ignore one important fact: all the spending in this bill is fully supported by the gas taxes paid and collected in the Highway Trust Fund. In fact, spending is actually below trust fund revenues over the next 6 years. Spending in this bill is linked to the amount of taxes collected in the trust fund, taxes collected from the motoring public and which can be used only for transportation purposes. Spending increases in this bill are so large in part because we are finally using the gas taxes for transportation instead of hoarding them in the trust fund to subsidize other spending. The current trust fund balance is about $23 billion. Under the budget agreement last year it would have grown to $70 billion. What is fair about that, government borrowing from the trust fund to spend on all kinds of things, adding to the national debt? Gas taxes are user fees collected to fund transportation. They should either be used for that purpose, as BESTEA does, or the gas tax should be cut. {time} 1415 Now, some have used the term ``hypocrisy'' to describe this bill. Well, the true hypocrisy is taxing the American public, saying we will use those taxes only for transportation, and then not living up to our part of the bargain. That is why America has become so skeptical about Washington. We are ending that practice in this bill. We should not lose sight of the fact that since BESTEA more fully spends the new gas taxes coming into the trust fund, we have agreed to write off a total of $9 billion of the outstanding $22 billion cash balance in the Highway Trust Fund, and we have agreed to forgo interest that would otherwise be credited to this trust fund saving over $14 billion in national indebtedness. No one has been talking about that, but it reduces the outstanding debt of the United States by over $20 billion. We have significantly reformed distribution formulas to provide for the more equitable allocation of funds among the States. Funding formulas are updated so that we no longer use historic shares to distribute funds, and instead we use up-to-date transportation data that more accurately reflects usage and need. Minimum allocation for donor States is increased to 95 percent. Several other donor State funding provisions are included. A very significant reform is that for the first time projects are included in the minimum allocation calculation so States cannot be severely disadvantaged or advantaged whether they have or do not have projects. Finally, donee States do not lose in terms of actual dollars received, but in fact increase substantially over the amounts received, over the past 6 years of ISTEA. Under BESTEA, we are able to increase funding for clean air programs. We increase by $2 billion funding for safety and safety education programs, and we have done an increase in transit funding by 43 percent. It contains significant reforms to streamline project delivery and reduce red tape, including coordinating environmental reviews, reducing project approval requirements and eliminating programmatic responsibilities of Department of Transportation regional offices. Mr. Chairman, passage of BESTEA today means Americans traveling on the roads will be safer. It means that we will take a step forward in sustaining and improving the economic prosperity that we as Americans are so fortunate to enjoy. And it means that we will be competitive in a global economy that relies on efficient transportation. We quite literally need good [[Page H1889]] highways, bridges and public transit to keep us moving ahead into the future. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), ranking member on the Subcommittee on Aviation. Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2400, the Building Efficiency Surface Transportation and Equity Act, commonly referred to as BESTEA. First, I want to thank our chairman and ranking members for all of their hard work, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). They have worked together to create a strong bipartisan bill that provides the necessary funding to maintain and improve our Nation's infrastructure. I am sure that during the debate today, a few of our colleagues will try to say that this important bill busts the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. This is simply not true. This bill is paid for out of the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund is supported by fuel taxes paid by motorists. Therefore, this bill is paid for each time motorists go to pay for their gasoline. BESTEA does not bust the balanced budget. BESTEA simply spends down the large unspent surplus in the Highway Trust Fund. Under this bill, dedicated gas taxes are used for their dedicated purpose, to address the transportation needs of cities and States throughout this Nation. This is absolutely necessary because America's transportation needs are staggering. Our Nation's transportation infrastructure in many areas is crumbling and it is in urgent need of repair, mainly because we as a Nation have not invested enough to maintain and improve our transportation system. In fact, in the last 30 years transportation spending as a percentage of the Federal budget has been cut in half. Yet investing in transportation means investing in America's future. Economic studies show that every dollar invested in the highway system yields $2.60 in economic benefit. Other countries are already investing billions in their core infrastructure. Fortunately, BESTEA does the same for America. Mr. Chairman, as I said this morning, BESTEA is a good bipartisan bill. It will provide better, safer roads. It will provide new and improved public transportation systems. It will improve air quality by reducing traffic congestion and by promoting public transit. It will provide good jobs for middle-class Americans. It will ensure America's future as a world leader by maintaining and improving our world class surface transportation system. I strongly urge all my colleagues to vote to invest in America's future and vote in favor of H.R. 2400. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I almost find myself uncontrollable here in recognizing and giving 5 minutes to the Honorable John Paul Hammerschmidt, a former member of Congress and a former ranking member of our committee, the man who would be chairman if he were still here, so I want to acknowledge he is in the Chamber and wish him well. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to join in the acknowledgment of our colleague, one of the architects of ISTEA that brings us to the floor today, and an extraordinarily distinguished Member of this House and of our committee for so very, very many years. We owe him a great debt of gratitude. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) chairman of one of the important appropriations subcommittees. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding the time and join in welcoming our friend, Mr. Hammerschmidt, back to this Chamber. Mr. Chairman, the highway bill before us today opens doors for the Nation and the people of Kentucky. First, it unlocks the Highway Trust Fund, providing the money needed to invest in our national highway system and to boost spending in donor States like Kentucky. BESTEA gives Kentucky 90 cents back on every dollar that we send in to the trust fund as opposed to 77 cents they received under ISTEA. Overall, Kentucky will receive on average approximately $479 million per year in highway funding. That is 70 percent more than our share over the last 5 years. Second, it launches the I-66 project in Kentucky, making the first major dollar investment toward construction. I-66 will open up southern and eastern Kentucky to the rest of the Nation, creating thousands of jobs. Third, monies included in the House and Senate version of this bill virtually guarantee that we will make substantial progress on the unfinished sections of the Appalachian development road system, which is vital to our region. Of special importance is that this bill will save lives. BESTEA gives States the ability to improve the safety of many poorly designed roads and bridges. This will save hundreds of lives in Kentucky alone. Simply put, BESTEA is the best deal for Kentucky, the best deal for donor States and the best deal for our Nation. I congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the other members of the committee for a great job on a great bill. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), ranking member on the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, who has contributed so vigorously and so many dedicated, devoted hours to the shaping of this legislation. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I commend the gentleman as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), for their excellent work on this legislation. As we begin debate on this legislation, we are indeed at a crossroads in this country. We can decide whether we want to retreat from the transportation needs of the new century and fail to make the necessary investments in our highway and transit infrastructure, or we can rise to the challenge and dedicate the necessary resources to these endeavors. Those of us who bring this legislation forth today are seeking to rise to that challenge, to keep faith with the American public, to restore integrity and restore trust back into the Highway Trust Fund and to make the necessary investments in America. To be clear, this is not just about an investment in concrete and asphalt, but one about investment into our children, one about investment into our environment, and an investment into the very social fabric of this Nation. This legislation involves the very standard of living we in this country wish to enjoy, and it entails the type of legacy we wish to leave to future generations, our children. Poor road pavement, outdated design standards, and the lack of safety enhancement present a very real threat to the motoring public. In parts of my district, school buses have collided with trucks for these very reasons, prematurely extinguishing the innocent lives of our younger generation. I know tragedies like this have happened elsewhere around the country. This bill makes an investment into improving those roads and providing more safety features so that we can better ensure the well- being of our children. Our environment, let us look at what this bill does. Congestion plagues our cities, both large and small. Air quality deteriorates as vehicles stack up behind each other with motors idling. And tempers flare erupting into road rage affecting so many parts of this country. This bill makes an investment into improving our environment by advancing alternative means of transportation such as transit, bicycle and pedestrian pathways, and innovative new intelligent transportation systems. Our very standard of living, let us look at what this bill does. In order to compete globally, companies are demanding production efficiency. It is estimated that more than one-half of U.S. manufacturers are using just-in-time inventory systems. This approach requires an efficient transportation system. [[Page H1890]] This legislation makes a fundamental investment into improving our transportation systems, not just highways, but transportation links that are intermodal in nature, to better ensure the smooth flow of goods, both domestic and international markets. It has been said that ISTEA represented a revolution in how we viewed our surface transportation needs. Over the course of the last 6 years ISTEA, as implemented, has produced some fundamental changes in the Federal role in transportation. It empowered our local communities. If ISTEA was indeed a revolution, then this bill known as BESTEA is a revelation; a revelation because it exposes the Highway Trust Fund for what it truly is, not an account to be used to mask the true size of the Federal deficit, or make our budget look brighter. Not a pot of funds to be held hostage to the whims and the caprices of our budgeteers, but rather as a trust fund, a trust fund paid into by the American motorists for the express purpose of receiving a better return in building our road and bridges in this country. I urge adoption of this entire bill. I think it is what the American public wants. It is what our children and future generations want. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble). Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to recognize the tremendous steps the committee is taking to significantly to improve donor States rate of return in this bill. BESTEA distributes funds equitably among the States by reforming the highway funding formulas so that they are based upon relevant transportation factors. Specifically, there are provisions in this bill which will guarantee that no State will fall below a 90 percent return on its contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. In addition, the committee repealed the penalty on discretionary grants for States that receive minimum allocation funding. While BESTEA is not perfect, Mr. Chairman, it certainly goes a long way to address the critical need of donor States, and I hope we can continue to work together to that end. This bill is not only about saving lives, it is about being honest with the American people. Many Members in the Chamber today will claim that this is a budget buster. I am a fiscal conservative, Mr. Chairman. This charge is simply not true. When Congress set up the Highway Trust Fund, it created a contract with the American people by instituting a gas tax with the promise that these taxes would only be used for transportation improvements. When these taxes are used to mask the size of the deficit or to increase welfare spending or foreign aid, the contract is broken and American lives are put at risk. Using the gas tax for other social spending is wrong and dishonest. We must, in fact, spend these taxes on what we promised we would spend them on. It is an honesty question and it is time to be honest with the American people. If we are not going to expend these monies for the purpose that was intended, then let us repeal the tax. Mr. Chairman, it is time to spend the Highway Trust Fund where it is supposed to be spent: Improving roads and enhancing the safety of the American motorists who use those roads. {time} 1430 Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for yielding me this time. I also want to commend and congratulate both he and our distinguished Chairman for bringing this truly bipartisan and truly historic bill to the floor of the House of Representatives. I also want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and, of course, our ranking member on the subcommittee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to understand that this is not just a highway bill. By establishing funding levels that are fiscally sound, it provides necessary resources to meet America's diverse transportation infrastructure needs. BESTEA maintains the enhancement and CMAQ provisions set forth in ISTEA. It provides for an equitable distribution of funds among States, it improves safety on our highways, provides flexibility for States and local areas, and it benefits urban and rural America. Mr. Chairman, it is important to point out that these varied and critical goals can only be met because of a provision in the bill that calls for phasing in spending the 4.3 cents fuel tax recently returned to the Trust Fund and taking the Trust Fund, itself, off budget beginning in 1999. The monies that are actually spent on our country's infrastructure have been consistently and substantially less than what is collected. To call this money a dedicated tax and then disregard its intended use is a fraud. Clearly, our country has enormous transportation infrastructure needs. We cannot afford to look the other way while revenues committed to address these needs go elsewhere or sit fallow. That money is desperately needed, and it exists in a Trust Fund. We do not need to find the money to pay for our infrastructure. We simply have to stop others from spending it for unintended purposes. Mr. Chairman, I must tell my colleagues, as a Representative from an urban community, I am greatly encouraged by the increase in transit funding provided for in BESTEA. Ridership on computer and light rail has grown steadily and significantly. New transit starts are exploding. And as such, in each of the last 4 years of the bill, $6.4 billion is spent on transit, nearly a 50-percent increase above current funding levels. In the current political climate of decreased Federal spending, committing such revenues speaks to the recognition of the pivotal role mass transit must play if we are to best utilize our resources, transportation and otherwise. Perhaps the best illustration of the innumerable benefits investments in our Nation's infrastructure and, more specifically, in transit can yield is found in the welfare-to-work provisions of the bill. This critically important program helps restore our cities and return our people to productive use by providing them with the ability to physically get to where the jobs are. People in my city of Philadelphia know all too well that, as companies abandon our cities for the suburbs, they take their jobs and opportunities with them, leaving unemployed city dwellers. In fact, two-thirds of all new jobs created are in the suburbs. Furthermore, less than 6 percent of families receiving benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Family program own cars. This means that 94 percent must rely on transit systems to get them to work. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my wholehearted support for H.R. 2400, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act of 1997. Let me first congratulate Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Oberstar, Chairman Petri, and Ranking Member Rahall for the truly remarkable job that they have done. Reauthorization of any bill of this magnitude is always an arduous and delicate task. But the validity of some of the inherently competing interests associated with this program, and the need for those interests to be both acknowledged and reconciled, created a monumental assignment for those charged with the reauthorization of ISTEA. What they bring to the floor today, surpasses any reasonable expectations held by those of us all too familiar with the scope and complexity of the bill. In BESTEA, the enormous needs of our nation's infrastructure have been addressed, while maintaining the integrity of the program itself. The result is a bipartisan product the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the whole House, should be proud to endorse. Finally, with this bill, we can do what we have promised every American that we would do when we asked them to pay into the Highway Trust Fund at the gas pump- adequately build and maintain our nation's crumbling infrastructure. This is not just a highway bill. By establishing funding levels that are fiscally sound it provides the necessary resources to meet America's diverse infrastructure needs. BESTEA maintains the enhancement and CMAQ provisions set forth in ISTEA. It provides for an equitable distribution of funds among states, improves safety on our highways, focuses on national priorities, streamlines program delivery, [[Page H1891]] and reinvents the DOT. The bill provides flexibility for states and local areas, benefits urban and rural America and supports technology development needed as we enter the 21st century. Mr. Chairman, it is important to point out that these varied and critical goals can only be met because of a provision in the bill that calls for phasing-in spending the 4.3 cents fuel tax recently returned to the Trust fund and taking the Trust fund, itself, off-budget, beginning in 1999. When Congress established the Highway Trust Fund in 1956, it was a deliberate policy decision to impose a user fee funding mechanism and a trust fund, rather than continuing to support transportation infrastructure programs out of general revenues. The Highway Trust fund ensured that the money was collected from those benefitting from the improvements by taxing gasoline, diesel and special fuels as well as heavy trucks and tires. By creating a trust fund, Congress was presumably guaranteeing a promise to those contributing to the fund that the money would be dedicated to transportation infrastructure improvements. This promise has blatantly been ignored for far too long. The monies that are actually spent on our country's infrastructure are consistently, and substantially, less than what is collected. As a result, an enormous surplus has been allowed to accumulate in the Trust Fund, much to the delight of our Nation's bookkeepers. This practice of locking up billion of dollars in treasury notes that should rightfully be stimulating our economy has been likened to a shell game, and amounts to nothing more than fraud on the taxpayer. To call this money a dedicated tax and then disregard its intended use is fraudulent. I can tell you as a sixteen year veteran of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that our nation's infrastructure can no longer afford to pay the price for dishonest bookkeeping. The Department of Transportation estimates that simply maintaining current conditions on our highway, bridge, and transit systems will require annual investments of $57 billion, an increase of 41%. These conditions are indisputably unacceptable and unsafe. In my home state of Pennsylvania for example, more than 70% of our roads were rated fair to poor. Over 40% of our bridges were deemed deficient. These statistics are not inconsequential. Inadequate roads and bridges are a factor in traffic accidents that result annually in over 12,000 highway deaths nationwide. Metropolitan congestion alone costs our nation more than $40 million annually. Transit needs are at least as critical. One-third of rail maintenance yards, stations, and bridges, and almost one-half of transit buildings are still in poor or fair condition. Rolling stock needs immediate replacement as the average fleet age for all classes of bus and paratransit vehicles has exceeded the useful life of the vehicles. Additionally, 51% of rural buses are overage and more than 9,000 urban buses need immediate replacement. According to the DOT, to improve the condition of our nation's infrastructure to optimal levels, would require annual investments of $80 billion. Clearly, our country has enormous needs. We cannot afford to look the other way while revenues committed to address these needs go elsewhere or sit fallow. Perhaps, if our nation's roads and bridges weren't crumbling we could indulge our colleagues as they continued to steal money dedicated to infrastructure so that they could claim, and take credit for, a balanced budget. But we can't. That money is desperately needed, and it exists in the trust fund. We don't need to find the money to pay for our infrastructure, we simply have to stop others from spending it for unintended purposes. If that results in a budget that is not balanced, I would suggest that my colleagues who serve on the appropriate committee should take a closer look and find offsets that would make up for the money they planned to divert from this user fee. Mr. Chairman, I must tell you that, as a Representative from an urban community, I am greatly encouraged by the increase in transit funding provided for in BESTEA. Ridership on commuter and light rail has grown steadily and significantly. New transit starts are exploding. In fact, our committee received over 150 requests for these type of projects just this year, totaling over $25 billion. As such, in each of the last four years of the bill, $6.4 billion is spent on transit, nearly a fifty percent increase above current funding levels. In the current political climate of decreased federal spending, committing such revenue speaks to the recognition of the pivotal role mass transit must play if we are to best utilize our resources-transportation and otherwise. Perhaps the best illustration of the innumerable benefits investment in our nation's infrastructure--and more specifically, in transit, can yield, is found in the Welfare-to-Work provision of the bill. This critically important program, helps restore our cities--and return our people--to productive use, by providing them with the ability to physically get to where the jobs are. People in my city of Philadelphia know all too well that, as companies abandon our cities for the suburbs, they take their jobs and opportunities with them, leaving unemployed city dwellers. In fact, two-thirds of all new jobs created are in the suburbs. Furthermore, research by the U.S. Department of Transportation found that less than 6% of families receiving benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program own cars. This means that 94% must rely on transit systems to get them to work. In the past, those of us who represent cities, have watched, with great frustration, the impact on our community as these companies leave for the suburbs. We have focused a great deal of energy on convincing companies to stay in or come to our city. While this is important, it is not always possible and, perhaps in our zealousness, we have not recognized the benefits of any other alternatives. If a company can or will not stay in the city, there is still an enormous economic benefit to be had, should people be able to commute out to the suburbs. This is the impetus behind the welfare-to-work program. And we have seen it work in cities like Chicago. Suburban Job-Link, working with Chicago's PACE bus company, began serving the needs of unemployed Chicago residents in 1971. The program has proven to yield economic rewards. For every 1,000 workers employed at suburban manufacturing jobs, $25 million in pay and benefits annually flow back into inner-city neighborhoods. Mr. Chairman, again, I would like to applaud the leadership of our committee for their truly remarkable and Historic accomplishment. A year ago, it seemed a nearly impossible task to meet the very real, diverse, and often competing needs of our nation's infrastructure. But Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar held firm to their principles, arguing tirelessly that integrity be restored to the Trust Fund. It is with admiration that I acknowledge their achievement and without any hesitation that I offer my support for the BESTEA bill. This bipartisan effort and product represents the very best our committee has to offer, and reinforces both the pleasure and pride with which I have served on it for the past sixteen years. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf). Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Chairman on an outstanding bill and ask if the Chairman will enter into a colloquy? Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I will be pleased to. Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, as the Chairman has noted, the volume of international trade passing through Washington State's ports has snarled traffic at dozens of at-grade rail-highway crossing in the Puget Sound region. As the Chairman knows, public and private interests have come together to propose a series of grade-crossing projects and port-access projects that we refer to as the ``fast corridor'' program. Does the Chairman agree that section 115 of the bill, the National Corridor Planning and Development Program, was designed to help projects like the fast corridor? Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would certainly agree with the gentleman. I have seen the problem firsthand there. As the gentleman from Washington has observed, I have first-hand knowledge of the special mobility problems in the Puget Sound region. The Fast Corridor Program was developed to address that problem. Section 136 of the bill designates the ``Everett-Tacoma Fast Corridor'' as a ``high-priority corridor.'' With this designation, the fast corridor would be eligible for funding under section 115, as you have already pointed out. Section 115 was designed with projects like the fast corridor in mind and I am certain that it would be an ideal candidate. I commend the gentleman for his initiative on this matter and for the leadership he brings to transportation issues in the region. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kim), a distinguished member of the committee. Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I have heard critics saying today that we are stealing money from other programs to rebuild our highways and bridges. Now, come on. Let us be honest with the American people. The money is already there. The American people pay for it with the gas tax money. In 1956, Congress made a simple contract with the American people that gas taxes would be used for highways and bridges. Seven years ago, Congress broke the promise and diverted gas tax [[Page H1892]] money to foreign aid and other programs. Southern Californians have paid dearly for that ever since. Southern Californians spend more time stuck in traffic than anyone else in the country. And there is another argument. I am tired of hearing this bill is full of pork. It is not about pork. It is about saving people's lives. Every year 14,000 people are killed in roads that are too narrow, too congested, or simply too dangerous for existing traffic. None of these people have to die. In my district, there is a road known as ``Blood Alley.'' Eight lanes of freeway are crammed into a two-lane country road when it crosses the county line. About 10 people die each year on this three-mile stretch of road because the counties do not want each other's traffic. Our bill includes $13 million to widen this Blood Alley and save lives. Fixing Blood Alley is our responsibility. It is not pork. Our bill saves lives and restores our promise to the American people. This bill forces Washington to keep its promise and fix highways with the gas and tax money. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development, a valiant, vigorous member of our committee and advocate for Buy America. Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, $217 billion is being invested in America, not overseas. To put some perspective on it, our trade deficits with China in the next 6 years will exceed $300 billion. Now let us call it like it is. Everybody is talking about pork. I was called the king of pork on ISTEA because I got five bridges funded. One of those bridges collapsed last week. One of my constituents almost got killed. Thank God, no one got killed in my district. They do not call that bridge pork today. Now let us put the hay where the goats can reach it. To all of these political purists in the Congress, here is how they would have it: We would fight to get the money for the States. The local politicians would have press conferences and announce the projects. Then they would brag how they got the money and that there was no Federal money in it. And then they will run against us. Beam me up. I do not apologize. In 1986, I passed the amendment that increased the minimum allocation to donor States. And last year in Ohio, 28 major projects, I did not get one of them; and we are the most deserving. I do not apologize for any damn thing. They can call me anything they want on this House floor, but if we do not take care of our district, no one is going to take care of our district. Stand up today, and you fight for your district. That is what it is about. This is not the Rotary, my colleagues. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, 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, I rise today in strong support of BESTEA, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act. I would like to point out to all of my colleagues and to the American people that BESTEA is green tea. The reason I have attached the label of ``green tea'' to the bill before us this afternoon is because the legislation provides more funding to improve the quality of America's environment than any approved by this body in the last decade. This is an environmentally sensitive and an environmentally friendly bill. And that is good for the American people, because they expect us to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink and the food we eat. Nothing is more important than that in terms of our assignment. Green tea contains over $40 billion for the transit program, the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality program, commonly known as CMAQ; the Transportation Enhancement Program; the Recreational Trails Program; and the National Scenic Byways Program. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the Chairman, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, are to be applauded for their obvious concerns about America's transportation policy and how they have incorporated a sensitivity to the environment in this measure. In fact, the environmental community strongly endorses BESTEA. Let me repeat this point. The environmental community strongly endorses BESTEA because they, too, know it is green tea. The Environmental Defense Fund, the League of American Bicyclists, the National Trust of Historic Preservation, the National Parks and Conservation Association, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Rails to Trails Program, Scenic America and the Sierra Club all strongly support BESTEA because they, too, know it is green tea. Green tea provides nearly $4 billion for the transportation enhancement program. This program provides needed funding to communities to build bicycle and pedestrian facilities and renovate historic transportation facilities. Green tea provides nearly $10 billion for the Congestion and Mitigation Air Quality Program over a 6- year period. This is a good bill. It deserves support. It has earned the support of the environmental community. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation. Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, this is a great day for all of us when it comes to transportation and the future of transportation needs. We know what they are doing in Europe, we know what they are doing in Asia, we know what they are doing in other countries around the world when it comes to infrastructure; and we are falling further and further behind. As one of the so-called donor States, I do know that we have been underserved, short-changed in the past. And I am pleased to hear what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuste

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

BUILDING EFFICIENT SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND EQUITY ACT OF 1998
(House of Representatives - April 01, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H1885-H2030] BUILDING EFFICIENT SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND EQUITY ACT OF 1998 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 405 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2400. {time} 1340 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 consideration of the bill (H.R. 2400) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hastings of Washington in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control one hour, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) will each control 15 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, today we bring to the floor of the House historic legislation, legislation to rebuild America so that we have a 21st Century transportation system. In the 21st Century, from Seattle to Miami, from New York to California, America is growing and prospering, but our infrastructure is crumbling. There are two fundamental principles in the bill we bring to the floor today. The first is to put the trust back in the Transportation Trust Funds. It is to restore honesty in budgeting. Every time an American drives up to the gas pump and pays his or her 18.4-cent gas tax for every gallon of tax, that money goes into the Highway Trust Fund and Americans have the right to believe that the money in the trust fund is going to be spent to improve transportation. In fact, that is the way it was, until in the mid-1960's President Johnson got the idea that by not spending the money, he could help fund the Vietnam War. Indeed, it was Eisenhower and the Congress which made a Contract with America, and that contract was you pay your gas tax, and that money is spent to improve highways. Unfortunately, in the past several years, we have had a fraud perpetrated on the American people. It has not happened. We have had abate and switch. You pay your gas tax, but the money in the trust fund does not get spent. To the tune, there is $23 billion in that Highway Trust Fund today. Let me share with Members something that a very well-known American said when he was Governor of a State just a few years ago. He said this on television: ``The Congress took that money from us under a solemn contract to turn right around and give it back to the States to be spent on roads and highways. Instead, they are hoarding that money up there, and the only reason is to make the Federal deficit look smaller than it is. It is just wrong. It is wrong as it can be, and we ought to stop it. It is in violation of the solemn contract the national government has to the people who pay the tax.'' Governor Bill Clinton. So I say now to the Clinton Administration, join us. Keep your word. Help us unlock the trust fund so that money can go where it is supposed to go, to improve America's transportation infrastructure. We swallowed hard in the committee to get where we are today on a couple of very, very important compromises. We agreed that from this point forward, we would not count the interest in the trust fund. Over the life of this bill, that means $15 billion in debt reduction for our country. And we swallowed hard and said that approximately $10 billion of the $23 billion in the balance will be returned. {time} 1345 Put those two figures together and you get about $25 billion in reduced debt for the Federal Government, an amount which approximates the increase in spending that this bill proposes. We only spend the revenue coming into this Trust Fund from this point forward. We only spend the money paid for by the American people in the gas tax and the related transportation taxes. Indeed, the projection is we come in over the 6-year period about $3 billion under the revenue coming in. I would be quick to say, if there is no need to spend this money, we certainly should not spend it, nor should we let it accumulate. We should reduce the taxes. So that brings me to, really, the second fundamental principle: That is, what are the needs for investment in infrastructure for America? I suggest [[Page H1886]] that the needs are very clear; indeed, they are overwhelming. Twenty- seven percent of the highways in America are in poor condition. The average American is stuck 26 hours out of every year in traffic. That does not really tell the whole story. The average American living in one of our big cities is stuck in traffic, bumper-to-bumper traffic, over 50 hours in a year, more than a workweek in a year. Indeed, on our highways, 42,000 Americans are killed every year. Of that 42,000, 9,000 are kids killed on our highways. The experts tell us that 30 percent of highway fatalities are caused by bad roads. That is 12,000 Americans of the 42,000 being killed on our highways. Indeed, it is about 2,700 kids being killed on our highways as a result of bad roads. That is more than a commercial airplane crashing every day. What outrage we would have in this country if we had an airplane going down every day. In addition to those fatalities, 3.5 million Americans are injured on our highways every year. Get this. For every baby born in America today, six out of every ten babies born will be injured in an automobile accident during his lifetime, some of them more than once, if we do not change these accident rates. We can change them. In fact, something I do not talk about very much, but it is appropriate today, I think. Seventeen years ago I had my neck broken in an automobile accident. I was a passenger in a head-on collision. I had my seatbelt on. They tell me I would have been a dead duck if I did not. But I am one of the lucky ones. They put three pins in my neck and a bone out of my hip, and I am okay. I am here. I am alive. I am lucky. But 42,000 Americans every year are not so lucky. Nine thousand kids every year are not so lucky. I would wager that there is hardly anybody here in the Chamber today, or in our viewing audience, who has not had a loved one or a friend who has been killed or seriously injured in an automobile accident. What is the cost of a life? We cannot really put a price tag on it, but what we do know is that with the investment made in this bill over the life of this bill, the experts tell us we can cut fatalities by 4,000 people a year. It sounds like a lot. Actually, it is less than 10 percent of the fatality rate. It is doable. But do we want to cut the number in half, 2,000 lives a year? What is the value we put on a life? This bill will save lives. This bill will give our country a productivity boost, an economic boost. This bill will create jobs. For every $1 billion invested in highways, 42,500 jobs are created. Where is the support for this bill? It is not just here in the Congress, although I must tell the Members how thrilled I was to see the overwhelmingly positive vote we got just a few minutes ago on the rule for this bill. If Members would listen to the naysayers, we would have thought we would have squeaked through, at best. Instead, when the vote came, it was six to one overwhelmingly in support of the rule for this bill. Who are the supporters of this bill? It is not just us. All 50 governors have endorsed this bill. The League of Cities, the mayors have endorsed this bill. The counties have endorsed this bill. The State legislatures have endorsed this bill. Environmentalists have endorsed this bill. Safety groups have endorsed this bill. Labor, the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce, what a pair, have both endorsed this legislation. And, yes, the AAA, representing millions of the motoring public. Why have they supported this bill? Why do we have this extraordinary, broad, bipartisan support across America? Here is what the bill does: It unlocks the Transportation Trust Fund and says, from this point forward the revenue coming into the Trust Fund can be spent on transportation improvements. Do not believe this baloney that we somehow break the budget, that we somehow create a deficit. Not a penny can be spent if, indeed, the money is not there in the Trust Fund to be spent. Not a penny can be spent if we do not come back to this House with offsets from conference with the Senate. So it cannot bust the budget. Indeed, it can only spend the revenues flowing into the Trust Fund paid for by the motoring public. That is not all this does. This revises the formulas for the States by which they get their money in a much fairer way. We throw out the old formula, which by the way is based in part on some 1919 statistics, if Members can believe that. We throw that aside, and we create a much fairer formula based on transportation need as well as population. We raise the minimum allocation for each State to 95 percent, including all formula funds; and, for the first time, we include the projects in the minimum calculation. We also say that the donor States, since they are the ones putting up most of the money, the donor States get preference in discretionary grants. Beyond that, we recognize the need for more flexibility. There are those who argue we should give the program back to the States. We believe that goes too far, but we acknowledge the States and the cities should have much more flexibility, and we put it in this bill. In this bill we provide that, in every category going back, the States and cities can shift up to 50 percent of the money in that category into any other category, based on the State or city need. There are two modifications to that. We want to protect the environment, and so we provide that in CMAQ and enhancements the States must spend at least as much as they have been previously spending, but in the increased money, 50 percent of that can be flexed to other categories, should the States and the localities so choose. Beyond that, we recognize the national interest. Those who talk about just give it all back to the States I think must be living in 1920 instead of 1998. Interestingly, there is a greater Federal interest today to tie our country together than there has ever been. Why? Because we have more interstate travel than we have ever had. I love to refer to Oklahoma City as an example. Out there, you have two interstates that cross, 35 and 40. They were built to carry 60,000 vehicles a day. They are carrying 120,000 vehicles a day. But, to me, that is not the most interesting figure. To me, the most interesting figure is that 60 percent of the license plates on those vehicles are out-of-State license plates. It is not an Oklahoma problem. It is a national problem. Up in Seattle, coming out of the great port of Seattle-Tacoma, over 50 percent of the product coming in from Asia is shipped to Chicago and east. With tongue in cheek, I said they should change the name from the Port of Seattle to the Port of Chicago, the point being it is not a Washington State problem, it is a national problem. Across America today, 64 percent of truck traffic is interstate. There is a greater need to tie our country together to make sure that the national interest is protected, as well as State and local interest. That is why we bring this balanced bill to the floor. We also move some general fund transportation spending into the Trust Fund. We acknowledge that it is the Transportation Trust Fund that should be spending the money, so we do that. We also toughen up safety standards. We provide incentives to toughen the drunk driving laws. We say that .08 is important, and we provide incentives to the States to put .08 in their State laws. But we do not want to have an unfunded mandate. We hope the States will do it. We give them an incentive to do it. On the subject of projects, which it seems the media and the opponents, few though they are, have focused so much on projects, only 5 percent of the funds in this bill go to congressional high-priority projects. Stop and think about it. Eight percent of all the money in this bill goes back to the States. Seven percent goes downtown to the Secretary of Transportation. The last time I checked, angels in heaven did not make the decisions and are not making the decisions as to where to build highways and transit systems. It is a political process. There is nothing wrong with the States, the Governors, the legislators having 88 percent of the money to decide how it is going to be spent, or the Secretary having 7 percent of the pot. We think it is not unreasonable, in fact, it is very reasonable, to say that the Members of Congress who have to cast the tough votes on this legislation [[Page H1887]] should be able to recommend to our committee what projects are most important in their district, and we limit it to only 5 percent of the pot. In addition to that, when we hear those saying, well, it is the same old way it used to be done, that simply is not true. We have a 14-point vetting process where these projects must meet the standard, including support from the Secretary of Transportation in their home States, or their mayors, if it is in an MPO area. Let me emphasize that this tough 14-point vetting program was something that was actually proposed and put into effect by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Nick Joe Rahall), a Democrat. So this is bipartisan. It is something that makes a lot of sense; and, indeed, it is something that should be done. Further, let me emphasize, when we hear people saying, well, if you eliminate the projects you save money, Mr. Speaker, we do not save a penny. The money, if there are no projects, simply goes back to the States or downtown. It will be spent, but it will either be the faceless, nameless bureaucrats downtown or in State government or the Governors or the State legislators who will be spending the money. I do not know how many Members I have had come to me and say, for example, my State government is all Republican, and I am a Democrat. I do not get anything in my district, so I need a high-priority project. Or, conversely, my State is all Democrat; and, as a Republican, I do not get anything unless I have a high-priority project. Who knows better what is most important in their district than the Members of Congress from that district? In fact, I would respectfully suggest there is a bit of arrogance in those who say that somehow they know better what is important in their congressional districts than Members know. Indeed, I would suggest that if Members do not know what is really important to people in their congressional district, they are not going to be here very long. Let me emphasize that, while we have some disagreement in this bill, I have the greatest respect particularly for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. John Kasich), who is not a hypocrite and who said he does not want to see tax revenue spent on transportation. {time} 1400 I disagree with him. I disagree with him fundamentally. But he is straight. This is his position. He has a right to take that position. And he also, in the process, has not sent us letters requesting projects for his district while at the same time saying he opposes projects. He is not a hypocrite. He is an honorable person. Mr. Chairman, I had to take the well last week and to release and put in the Congressional Record letters from several Members of Congress who are castigating the projects but who have asked for multimillion dollar projects in their own congressional districts. Now, as hard as that is for Members to believe, it is in the Record. It is there for Members to see. Last week I challenged any Member to come forward and say that I had offered a project in exchange for his vote or, conversely, had threatened to take a project away if he did not vote with us. Nobody has responded to that challenge. Why? Because nobody can, because that is not the way we do business. Not only in this bill, but never in my career in the Congress have I ever made such a threat to a Member of Congress. So it is very regrettable that the people who on the one hand seem so self-righteous also are dealing very loosely with the truth. Maybe there is a little inconsistency there that I hope one might recognize. In fact, there is a great line in the book, ``The Hawaiians'' which I will clean up and paraphrase, which is, ``How I envy the pious. They can be such hypocrites and never even know it.'' Well, the good news is we have dealt fairly with every Member in this body. I must say I was surprised to see the gentleman from Delaware, my good friend, last week holding a press conference because he does not like our bill, calling it highway robbery. He is my good friend. We serve together on the Select Committee on Intelligence. Indeed, we are members of other organizations here on the Hill. But what short memories we seem to have. It was just last year that the Delaware delegation pushed through $2.3 billion for Amtrak. In fact it was described by some as one of the most bizarre, backhanded ways of funding a program that has ever been witnessed around here. But I did not take the floor and call it the ``great train robbery.'' No, I supported what they were trying to do because we were able to reform Amtrak, because Amtrak is important, not to some Members but to the gentleman from Delaware and the Members from the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak is important to them, so we supported that and we supported the reform of Amtrak. I must tell my colleagues that the reform bill spells out that those reforms must be accomplished by June 1, or all money for Amtrak stops, ceases, zero. I must also tell my colleagues that there are indications that those reforms may not be met by June 1, which means they will have to be back here on the floor again asking for forgiveness for Amtrak legislation or there will not be any money for Amtrak. Well, it seems to me that it might be a little more difficult next time around to get that kind of forgiveness for Amtrak. So I hope that those who sometimes seem to feel that nobody's cause but their own is worthwhile might take a little broader look at the transportation needs all across America. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge is another case in point. A billion dollars. We read so much in the local papers about the importance of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. Let me tell my colleagues there are over 30 interstate reconstruction projects, all of which cost more than a billion dollars. So while the Woodrow Wilson Bridge may well be important to the region here, there are other projects all across America which cost just as much on the interstate system, the highest priority system, and which are just as important to other Americans across this country. So I hope that, again, those who seem to see nothing of virtue in anything but their own particular interest might broaden their horizons just a bit. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues who know me best know I am not exactly a raving left-wing liberal spender. In fact the American Conservative Union gave me a 100 percent rating last year. I slipped in my NFIB rating. I only got a 97. I am not a big spender; I am a fiscal conservative. But there is a fundamental difference between spending tax dollars to build assets and pouring money down a rat hole. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I would say to my conservative Republican colleagues, look at the legacy of our party. It was Abraham Lincoln who in the midst of the Civil War signed the papers to create the first transcontinental railroad and who strongly supported Henry Clay's American system for capital improvements, for internal improvements. It was Teddy Roosevelt, the Panama Canal. George Will, the wonderful columnist, wrote a column a few months ago in which he observed that some conservatives today, had those same conservatives been back there with Teddy Roosevelt, probably would have voted against the Panama Canal. Well, I would like to think not, but it does not end with Teddy Roosevelt. Eisenhower, the father of the interstate system. Mr. Chairman, do my colleagues know who Eisenhower's floor manager was in the United States Senate to pass the interstate system? Prescott Bush, the father of President George Bush. To my conservative colleagues I say we have a legacy here of building America and today is the day we have the opportunity to do it. Today is the day we have the opportunity to put honesty back in budgeting. To spend only the trust fund money that is coming in. To save lives. To remove congestion and to increase productivity. The revenue exists. Let me close by sharing with my colleagues something that Stephen Ambrose, the historian, wrote in a book that just came out recently. It is a wonderful book entitled ``Citizen Soldiers.'' It is a book about the soldiers of America who in World War II slogged their way through Europe to win victory for our country and for the allies. He wrote in the conclusion of his wonderful book about those World War [[Page H1888]] II veterans when they came home, and here is what he said about them: These were the men who built modern America. They wanted to construct. They built the interstate highway system, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the suburbs so scorned by the sociologists but so successful with the people, and much more. So let us on a bipartisan basis in this Chamber today, let us in our time be the builders of a better America as we move into a new and exciting 21st century, so that our children's children 50 years from now might be able to look back and say: See, this they did for us. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, 42 years ago in this Chamber a Democratic Congress, united with a Republican President, launched a new experiment in transportation, one that would prove to be enormously successful in improving America's mobility and expanding its economy and moving transportation from border to border and coast to coast in a way that never had been accomplished before. Today we stand at the beginning of a new century and a new millennium. The legislation we bring to the floor today takes us beyond the vision of the interstate system and beyond the vision that was created in ISTEA in 1991 and to a new century, a new millennium, a new investment with renewed vigor in a future America. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) on the extraordinary job he has accomplished of leading us through the thicket of conflicting issues, values, ideas, demands, interests and pressures to do the right thing for America. He traced the evolution of the transportation system, of this legislation, in a very heartfelt, deeply sensitive and deeply committed way just a moment ago. His words are a measure for all time. What we do in this legislation is not just to continue but to extend beyond where we have been in our transportation mix of the last 42 years. Mr. Chairman, we continue the investment in America that is the fundamental driving force for this transportation sector, which is 10 percent of our gross domestic product. We continue the programs of this country that we initiated in ISTEA that have been so enormously successful. We continue the environmental stewardship. We address safety and, indeed, had we not addressed safety with the interstate highway program in 1956, we would be killing 110,000 people on America's highways today. We provide continued equity in our transportation program for minorities for labor, for construction labor, and for the States through our distribution formula. This is a bill that is good for all America, for all time, to take us into that next century. Not a bridge of fiber optic cable, but a bridge built on concrete, asphalt, steel and goodwill and good vision and a good sense of direction for America. Transportation means economic growth, means mobility, and it means opportunity for America. That is what this legislation is all about. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering legislation that, perhaps more than any bill we will consider this Congress, touches the lives of each and every constituent of each and every Member of this House. Mr. Chairman, until something goes wrong, we often overlook the impact that transportation has on our daily lives. No matter who we are or where we live, we rely on an efficient and safe transportation network. Whether we live in an urban area where transit provides a way to get to and from work; whether we farm land in a rural area and need to get crops to market quickly; whether we own a business that needs to truck in materials and get finished goods out over the roads; whether we are a young mother worrying about safely driving our young children to school each day; or whether we load up the family and go down the highway on our annual family vacation in Disney World or the Grand Canyon, we need a good transportation system in the United States for daily commutes, to transport freight around the country, and to provide opportunities for tourism and for recreation. Transportation is something that we use every day, and it provides a safe and efficient way of getting around and moving goods, and it is something that our constituents expect. Mr. Chairman, today we have an opportunity to pass legislation that truly does provide tangible, real benefits for all Americans. Some have tried to attack the bill before us based on the funding levels and budget implications of authorizations for projects in various Members' districts. But those critics ignore one important fact: all the spending in this bill is fully supported by the gas taxes paid and collected in the Highway Trust Fund. In fact, spending is actually below trust fund revenues over the next 6 years. Spending in this bill is linked to the amount of taxes collected in the trust fund, taxes collected from the motoring public and which can be used only for transportation purposes. Spending increases in this bill are so large in part because we are finally using the gas taxes for transportation instead of hoarding them in the trust fund to subsidize other spending. The current trust fund balance is about $23 billion. Under the budget agreement last year it would have grown to $70 billion. What is fair about that, government borrowing from the trust fund to spend on all kinds of things, adding to the national debt? Gas taxes are user fees collected to fund transportation. They should either be used for that purpose, as BESTEA does, or the gas tax should be cut. {time} 1415 Now, some have used the term ``hypocrisy'' to describe this bill. Well, the true hypocrisy is taxing the American public, saying we will use those taxes only for transportation, and then not living up to our part of the bargain. That is why America has become so skeptical about Washington. We are ending that practice in this bill. We should not lose sight of the fact that since BESTEA more fully spends the new gas taxes coming into the trust fund, we have agreed to write off a total of $9 billion of the outstanding $22 billion cash balance in the Highway Trust Fund, and we have agreed to forgo interest that would otherwise be credited to this trust fund saving over $14 billion in national indebtedness. No one has been talking about that, but it reduces the outstanding debt of the United States by over $20 billion. We have significantly reformed distribution formulas to provide for the more equitable allocation of funds among the States. Funding formulas are updated so that we no longer use historic shares to distribute funds, and instead we use up-to-date transportation data that more accurately reflects usage and need. Minimum allocation for donor States is increased to 95 percent. Several other donor State funding provisions are included. A very significant reform is that for the first time projects are included in the minimum allocation calculation so States cannot be severely disadvantaged or advantaged whether they have or do not have projects. Finally, donee States do not lose in terms of actual dollars received, but in fact increase substantially over the amounts received, over the past 6 years of ISTEA. Under BESTEA, we are able to increase funding for clean air programs. We increase by $2 billion funding for safety and safety education programs, and we have done an increase in transit funding by 43 percent. It contains significant reforms to streamline project delivery and reduce red tape, including coordinating environmental reviews, reducing project approval requirements and eliminating programmatic responsibilities of Department of Transportation regional offices. Mr. Chairman, passage of BESTEA today means Americans traveling on the roads will be safer. It means that we will take a step forward in sustaining and improving the economic prosperity that we as Americans are so fortunate to enjoy. And it means that we will be competitive in a global economy that relies on efficient transportation. We quite literally need good [[Page H1889]] highways, bridges and public transit to keep us moving ahead into the future. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), ranking member on the Subcommittee on Aviation. Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2400, the Building Efficiency Surface Transportation and Equity Act, commonly referred to as BESTEA. First, I want to thank our chairman and ranking members for all of their hard work, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). They have worked together to create a strong bipartisan bill that provides the necessary funding to maintain and improve our Nation's infrastructure. I am sure that during the debate today, a few of our colleagues will try to say that this important bill busts the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. This is simply not true. This bill is paid for out of the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund is supported by fuel taxes paid by motorists. Therefore, this bill is paid for each time motorists go to pay for their gasoline. BESTEA does not bust the balanced budget. BESTEA simply spends down the large unspent surplus in the Highway Trust Fund. Under this bill, dedicated gas taxes are used for their dedicated purpose, to address the transportation needs of cities and States throughout this Nation. This is absolutely necessary because America's transportation needs are staggering. Our Nation's transportation infrastructure in many areas is crumbling and it is in urgent need of repair, mainly because we as a Nation have not invested enough to maintain and improve our transportation system. In fact, in the last 30 years transportation spending as a percentage of the Federal budget has been cut in half. Yet investing in transportation means investing in America's future. Economic studies show that every dollar invested in the highway system yields $2.60 in economic benefit. Other countries are already investing billions in their core infrastructure. Fortunately, BESTEA does the same for America. Mr. Chairman, as I said this morning, BESTEA is a good bipartisan bill. It will provide better, safer roads. It will provide new and improved public transportation systems. It will improve air quality by reducing traffic congestion and by promoting public transit. It will provide good jobs for middle-class Americans. It will ensure America's future as a world leader by maintaining and improving our world class surface transportation system. I strongly urge all my colleagues to vote to invest in America's future and vote in favor of H.R. 2400. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I almost find myself uncontrollable here in recognizing and giving 5 minutes to the Honorable John Paul Hammerschmidt, a former member of Congress and a former ranking member of our committee, the man who would be chairman if he were still here, so I want to acknowledge he is in the Chamber and wish him well. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to join in the acknowledgment of our colleague, one of the architects of ISTEA that brings us to the floor today, and an extraordinarily distinguished Member of this House and of our committee for so very, very many years. We owe him a great debt of gratitude. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) chairman of one of the important appropriations subcommittees. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding the time and join in welcoming our friend, Mr. Hammerschmidt, back to this Chamber. Mr. Chairman, the highway bill before us today opens doors for the Nation and the people of Kentucky. First, it unlocks the Highway Trust Fund, providing the money needed to invest in our national highway system and to boost spending in donor States like Kentucky. BESTEA gives Kentucky 90 cents back on every dollar that we send in to the trust fund as opposed to 77 cents they received under ISTEA. Overall, Kentucky will receive on average approximately $479 million per year in highway funding. That is 70 percent more than our share over the last 5 years. Second, it launches the I-66 project in Kentucky, making the first major dollar investment toward construction. I-66 will open up southern and eastern Kentucky to the rest of the Nation, creating thousands of jobs. Third, monies included in the House and Senate version of this bill virtually guarantee that we will make substantial progress on the unfinished sections of the Appalachian development road system, which is vital to our region. Of special importance is that this bill will save lives. BESTEA gives States the ability to improve the safety of many poorly designed roads and bridges. This will save hundreds of lives in Kentucky alone. Simply put, BESTEA is the best deal for Kentucky, the best deal for donor States and the best deal for our Nation. I congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the other members of the committee for a great job on a great bill. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), ranking member on the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, who has contributed so vigorously and so many dedicated, devoted hours to the shaping of this legislation. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I commend the gentleman as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), for their excellent work on this legislation. As we begin debate on this legislation, we are indeed at a crossroads in this country. We can decide whether we want to retreat from the transportation needs of the new century and fail to make the necessary investments in our highway and transit infrastructure, or we can rise to the challenge and dedicate the necessary resources to these endeavors. Those of us who bring this legislation forth today are seeking to rise to that challenge, to keep faith with the American public, to restore integrity and restore trust back into the Highway Trust Fund and to make the necessary investments in America. To be clear, this is not just about an investment in concrete and asphalt, but one about investment into our children, one about investment into our environment, and an investment into the very social fabric of this Nation. This legislation involves the very standard of living we in this country wish to enjoy, and it entails the type of legacy we wish to leave to future generations, our children. Poor road pavement, outdated design standards, and the lack of safety enhancement present a very real threat to the motoring public. In parts of my district, school buses have collided with trucks for these very reasons, prematurely extinguishing the innocent lives of our younger generation. I know tragedies like this have happened elsewhere around the country. This bill makes an investment into improving those roads and providing more safety features so that we can better ensure the well- being of our children. Our environment, let us look at what this bill does. Congestion plagues our cities, both large and small. Air quality deteriorates as vehicles stack up behind each other with motors idling. And tempers flare erupting into road rage affecting so many parts of this country. This bill makes an investment into improving our environment by advancing alternative means of transportation such as transit, bicycle and pedestrian pathways, and innovative new intelligent transportation systems. Our very standard of living, let us look at what this bill does. In order to compete globally, companies are demanding production efficiency. It is estimated that more than one-half of U.S. manufacturers are using just-in-time inventory systems. This approach requires an efficient transportation system. [[Page H1890]] This legislation makes a fundamental investment into improving our transportation systems, not just highways, but transportation links that are intermodal in nature, to better ensure the smooth flow of goods, both domestic and international markets. It has been said that ISTEA represented a revolution in how we viewed our surface transportation needs. Over the course of the last 6 years ISTEA, as implemented, has produced some fundamental changes in the Federal role in transportation. It empowered our local communities. If ISTEA was indeed a revolution, then this bill known as BESTEA is a revelation; a revelation because it exposes the Highway Trust Fund for what it truly is, not an account to be used to mask the true size of the Federal deficit, or make our budget look brighter. Not a pot of funds to be held hostage to the whims and the caprices of our budgeteers, but rather as a trust fund, a trust fund paid into by the American motorists for the express purpose of receiving a better return in building our road and bridges in this country. I urge adoption of this entire bill. I think it is what the American public wants. It is what our children and future generations want. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble). Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to recognize the tremendous steps the committee is taking to significantly to improve donor States rate of return in this bill. BESTEA distributes funds equitably among the States by reforming the highway funding formulas so that they are based upon relevant transportation factors. Specifically, there are provisions in this bill which will guarantee that no State will fall below a 90 percent return on its contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. In addition, the committee repealed the penalty on discretionary grants for States that receive minimum allocation funding. While BESTEA is not perfect, Mr. Chairman, it certainly goes a long way to address the critical need of donor States, and I hope we can continue to work together to that end. This bill is not only about saving lives, it is about being honest with the American people. Many Members in the Chamber today will claim that this is a budget buster. I am a fiscal conservative, Mr. Chairman. This charge is simply not true. When Congress set up the Highway Trust Fund, it created a contract with the American people by instituting a gas tax with the promise that these taxes would only be used for transportation improvements. When these taxes are used to mask the size of the deficit or to increase welfare spending or foreign aid, the contract is broken and American lives are put at risk. Using the gas tax for other social spending is wrong and dishonest. We must, in fact, spend these taxes on what we promised we would spend them on. It is an honesty question and it is time to be honest with the American people. If we are not going to expend these monies for the purpose that was intended, then let us repeal the tax. Mr. Chairman, it is time to spend the Highway Trust Fund where it is supposed to be spent: Improving roads and enhancing the safety of the American motorists who use those roads. {time} 1430 Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for yielding me this time. I also want to commend and congratulate both he and our distinguished Chairman for bringing this truly bipartisan and truly historic bill to the floor of the House of Representatives. I also want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and, of course, our ranking member on the subcommittee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to understand that this is not just a highway bill. By establishing funding levels that are fiscally sound, it provides necessary resources to meet America's diverse transportation infrastructure needs. BESTEA maintains the enhancement and CMAQ provisions set forth in ISTEA. It provides for an equitable distribution of funds among States, it improves safety on our highways, provides flexibility for States and local areas, and it benefits urban and rural America. Mr. Chairman, it is important to point out that these varied and critical goals can only be met because of a provision in the bill that calls for phasing in spending the 4.3 cents fuel tax recently returned to the Trust Fund and taking the Trust Fund, itself, off budget beginning in 1999. The monies that are actually spent on our country's infrastructure have been consistently and substantially less than what is collected. To call this money a dedicated tax and then disregard its intended use is a fraud. Clearly, our country has enormous transportation infrastructure needs. We cannot afford to look the other way while revenues committed to address these needs go elsewhere or sit fallow. That money is desperately needed, and it exists in a Trust Fund. We do not need to find the money to pay for our infrastructure. We simply have to stop others from spending it for unintended purposes. Mr. Chairman, I must tell my colleagues, as a Representative from an urban community, I am greatly encouraged by the increase in transit funding provided for in BESTEA. Ridership on computer and light rail has grown steadily and significantly. New transit starts are exploding. And as such, in each of the last 4 years of the bill, $6.4 billion is spent on transit, nearly a 50-percent increase above current funding levels. In the current political climate of decreased Federal spending, committing such revenues speaks to the recognition of the pivotal role mass transit must play if we are to best utilize our resources, transportation and otherwise. Perhaps the best illustration of the innumerable benefits investments in our Nation's infrastructure and, more specifically, in transit can yield is found in the welfare-to-work provisions of the bill. This critically important program helps restore our cities and return our people to productive use by providing them with the ability to physically get to where the jobs are. People in my city of Philadelphia know all too well that, as companies abandon our cities for the suburbs, they take their jobs and opportunities with them, leaving unemployed city dwellers. In fact, two-thirds of all new jobs created are in the suburbs. Furthermore, less than 6 percent of families receiving benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Family program own cars. This means that 94 percent must rely on transit systems to get them to work. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my wholehearted support for H.R. 2400, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act of 1997. Let me first congratulate Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Oberstar, Chairman Petri, and Ranking Member Rahall for the truly remarkable job that they have done. Reauthorization of any bill of this magnitude is always an arduous and delicate task. But the validity of some of the inherently competing interests associated with this program, and the need for those interests to be both acknowledged and reconciled, created a monumental assignment for those charged with the reauthorization of ISTEA. What they bring to the floor today, surpasses any reasonable expectations held by those of us all too familiar with the scope and complexity of the bill. In BESTEA, the enormous needs of our nation's infrastructure have been addressed, while maintaining the integrity of the program itself. The result is a bipartisan product the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the whole House, should be proud to endorse. Finally, with this bill, we can do what we have promised every American that we would do when we asked them to pay into the Highway Trust Fund at the gas pump- adequately build and maintain our nation's crumbling infrastructure. This is not just a highway bill. By establishing funding levels that are fiscally sound it provides the necessary resources to meet America's diverse infrastructure needs. BESTEA maintains the enhancement and CMAQ provisions set forth in ISTEA. It provides for an equitable distribution of funds among states, improves safety on our highways, focuses on national priorities, streamlines program delivery, [[Page H1891]] and reinvents the DOT. The bill provides flexibility for states and local areas, benefits urban and rural America and supports technology development needed as we enter the 21st century. Mr. Chairman, it is important to point out that these varied and critical goals can only be met because of a provision in the bill that calls for phasing-in spending the 4.3 cents fuel tax recently returned to the Trust fund and taking the Trust fund, itself, off-budget, beginning in 1999. When Congress established the Highway Trust Fund in 1956, it was a deliberate policy decision to impose a user fee funding mechanism and a trust fund, rather than continuing to support transportation infrastructure programs out of general revenues. The Highway Trust fund ensured that the money was collected from those benefitting from the improvements by taxing gasoline, diesel and special fuels as well as heavy trucks and tires. By creating a trust fund, Congress was presumably guaranteeing a promise to those contributing to the fund that the money would be dedicated to transportation infrastructure improvements. This promise has blatantly been ignored for far too long. The monies that are actually spent on our country's infrastructure are consistently, and substantially, less than what is collected. As a result, an enormous surplus has been allowed to accumulate in the Trust Fund, much to the delight of our Nation's bookkeepers. This practice of locking up billion of dollars in treasury notes that should rightfully be stimulating our economy has been likened to a shell game, and amounts to nothing more than fraud on the taxpayer. To call this money a dedicated tax and then disregard its intended use is fraudulent. I can tell you as a sixteen year veteran of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that our nation's infrastructure can no longer afford to pay the price for dishonest bookkeeping. The Department of Transportation estimates that simply maintaining current conditions on our highway, bridge, and transit systems will require annual investments of $57 billion, an increase of 41%. These conditions are indisputably unacceptable and unsafe. In my home state of Pennsylvania for example, more than 70% of our roads were rated fair to poor. Over 40% of our bridges were deemed deficient. These statistics are not inconsequential. Inadequate roads and bridges are a factor in traffic accidents that result annually in over 12,000 highway deaths nationwide. Metropolitan congestion alone costs our nation more than $40 million annually. Transit needs are at least as critical. One-third of rail maintenance yards, stations, and bridges, and almost one-half of transit buildings are still in poor or fair condition. Rolling stock needs immediate replacement as the average fleet age for all classes of bus and paratransit vehicles has exceeded the useful life of the vehicles. Additionally, 51% of rural buses are overage and more than 9,000 urban buses need immediate replacement. According to the DOT, to improve the condition of our nation's infrastructure to optimal levels, would require annual investments of $80 billion. Clearly, our country has enormous needs. We cannot afford to look the other way while revenues committed to address these needs go elsewhere or sit fallow. Perhaps, if our nation's roads and bridges weren't crumbling we could indulge our colleagues as they continued to steal money dedicated to infrastructure so that they could claim, and take credit for, a balanced budget. But we can't. That money is desperately needed, and it exists in the trust fund. We don't need to find the money to pay for our infrastructure, we simply have to stop others from spending it for unintended purposes. If that results in a budget that is not balanced, I would suggest that my colleagues who serve on the appropriate committee should take a closer look and find offsets that would make up for the money they planned to divert from this user fee. Mr. Chairman, I must tell you that, as a Representative from an urban community, I am greatly encouraged by the increase in transit funding provided for in BESTEA. Ridership on commuter and light rail has grown steadily and significantly. New transit starts are exploding. In fact, our committee received over 150 requests for these type of projects just this year, totaling over $25 billion. As such, in each of the last four years of the bill, $6.4 billion is spent on transit, nearly a fifty percent increase above current funding levels. In the current political climate of decreased federal spending, committing such revenue speaks to the recognition of the pivotal role mass transit must play if we are to best utilize our resources-transportation and otherwise. Perhaps the best illustration of the innumerable benefits investment in our nation's infrastructure--and more specifically, in transit, can yield, is found in the Welfare-to-Work provision of the bill. This critically important program, helps restore our cities--and return our people--to productive use, by providing them with the ability to physically get to where the jobs are. People in my city of Philadelphia know all too well that, as companies abandon our cities for the suburbs, they take their jobs and opportunities with them, leaving unemployed city dwellers. In fact, two-thirds of all new jobs created are in the suburbs. Furthermore, research by the U.S. Department of Transportation found that less than 6% of families receiving benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program own cars. This means that 94% must rely on transit systems to get them to work. In the past, those of us who represent cities, have watched, with great frustration, the impact on our community as these companies leave for the suburbs. We have focused a great deal of energy on convincing companies to stay in or come to our city. While this is important, it is not always possible and, perhaps in our zealousness, we have not recognized the benefits of any other alternatives. If a company can or will not stay in the city, there is still an enormous economic benefit to be had, should people be able to commute out to the suburbs. This is the impetus behind the welfare-to-work program. And we have seen it work in cities like Chicago. Suburban Job-Link, working with Chicago's PACE bus company, began serving the needs of unemployed Chicago residents in 1971. The program has proven to yield economic rewards. For every 1,000 workers employed at suburban manufacturing jobs, $25 million in pay and benefits annually flow back into inner-city neighborhoods. Mr. Chairman, again, I would like to applaud the leadership of our committee for their truly remarkable and Historic accomplishment. A year ago, it seemed a nearly impossible task to meet the very real, diverse, and often competing needs of our nation's infrastructure. But Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar held firm to their principles, arguing tirelessly that integrity be restored to the Trust Fund. It is with admiration that I acknowledge their achievement and without any hesitation that I offer my support for the BESTEA bill. This bipartisan effort and product represents the very best our committee has to offer, and reinforces both the pleasure and pride with which I have served on it for the past sixteen years. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf). Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Chairman on an outstanding bill and ask if the Chairman will enter into a colloquy? Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I will be pleased to. Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, as the Chairman has noted, the volume of international trade passing through Washington State's ports has snarled traffic at dozens of at-grade rail-highway crossing in the Puget Sound region. As the Chairman knows, public and private interests have come together to propose a series of grade-crossing projects and port-access projects that we refer to as the ``fast corridor'' program. Does the Chairman agree that section 115 of the bill, the National Corridor Planning and Development Program, was designed to help projects like the fast corridor? Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would certainly agree with the gentleman. I have seen the problem firsthand there. As the gentleman from Washington has observed, I have first-hand knowledge of the special mobility problems in the Puget Sound region. The Fast Corridor Program was developed to address that problem. Section 136 of the bill designates the ``Everett-Tacoma Fast Corridor'' as a ``high-priority corridor.'' With this designation, the fast corridor would be eligible for funding under section 115, as you have already pointed out. Section 115 was designed with projects like the fast corridor in mind and I am certain that it would be an ideal candidate. I commend the gentleman for his initiative on this matter and for the leadership he brings to transportation issues in the region. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kim), a distinguished member of the committee. Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I have heard critics saying today that we are stealing money from other programs to rebuild our highways and bridges. Now, come on. Let us be honest with the American people. The money is already there. The American people pay for it with the gas tax money. In 1956, Congress made a simple contract with the American people that gas taxes would be used for highways and bridges. Seven years ago, Congress broke the promise and diverted gas tax [[Page H1892]] money to foreign aid and other programs. Southern Californians have paid dearly for that ever since. Southern Californians spend more time stuck in traffic than anyone else in the country. And there is another argument. I am tired of hearing this bill is full of pork. It is not about pork. It is about saving people's lives. Every year 14,000 people are killed in roads that are too narrow, too congested, or simply too dangerous for existing traffic. None of these people have to die. In my district, there is a road known as ``Blood Alley.'' Eight lanes of freeway are crammed into a two-lane country road when it crosses the county line. About 10 people die each year on this three-mile stretch of road because the counties do not want each other's traffic. Our bill includes $13 million to widen this Blood Alley and save lives. Fixing Blood Alley is our responsibility. It is not pork. Our bill saves lives and restores our promise to the American people. This bill forces Washington to keep its promise and fix highways with the gas and tax money. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development, a valiant, vigorous member of our committee and advocate for Buy America. Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, $217 billion is being invested in America, not overseas. To put some perspective on it, our trade deficits with China in the next 6 years will exceed $300 billion. Now let us call it like it is. Everybody is talking about pork. I was called the king of pork on ISTEA because I got five bridges funded. One of those bridges collapsed last week. One of my constituents almost got killed. Thank God, no one got killed in my district. They do not call that bridge pork today. Now let us put the hay where the goats can reach it. To all of these political purists in the Congress, here is how they would have it: We would fight to get the money for the States. The local politicians would have press conferences and announce the projects. Then they would brag how they got the money and that there was no Federal money in it. And then they will run against us. Beam me up. I do not apologize. In 1986, I passed the amendment that increased the minimum allocation to donor States. And last year in Ohio, 28 major projects, I did not get one of them; and we are the most deserving. I do not apologize for any damn thing. They can call me anything they want on this House floor, but if we do not take care of our district, no one is going to take care of our district. Stand up today, and you fight for your district. That is what it is about. This is not the Rotary, my colleagues. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, 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, I rise today in strong support of BESTEA, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act. I would like to point out to all of my colleagues and to the American people that BESTEA is green tea. The reason I have attached the label of ``green tea'' to the bill before us this afternoon is because the legislation provides more funding to improve the quality of America's environment than any approved by this body in the last decade. This is an environmentally sensitive and an environmentally friendly bill. And that is good for the American people, because they expect us to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink and the food we eat. Nothing is more important than that in terms of our assignment. Green tea contains over $40 billion for the transit program, the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality program, commonly known as CMAQ; the Transportation Enhancement Program; the Recreational Trails Program; and the National Scenic Byways Program. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the Chairman, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, are to be applauded for their obvious concerns about America's transportation policy and how they have incorporated a sensitivity to the environment in this measure. In fact, the environmental community strongly endorses BESTEA. Let me repeat this point. The environmental community strongly endorses BESTEA because they, too, know it is green tea. The Environmental Defense Fund, the League of American Bicyclists, the National Trust of Historic Preservation, the National Parks and Conservation Association, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Rails to Trails Program, Scenic America and the Sierra Club all strongly support BESTEA because they, too, know it is green tea. Green tea provides nearly $4 billion for the transportation enhancement program. This program provides needed funding to communities to build bicycle and pedestrian facilities and renovate historic transportation facilities. Green tea provides nearly $10 billion for the Congestion and Mitigation Air Quality Program over a 6- year period. This is a good bill. It deserves support. It has earned the support of the environmental community. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation. Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, this is a great day for all of us when it comes to transportation and the future of transportation needs. We know what they are doing in Europe, we know what they are doing in Asia, we know what they are doing in other countries around the world when it comes to infrastructure; and we are falling further and further behind. As one of the so-called donor States, I do know that we have been underserved, short-changed in the past. And I am pleased to hear what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (

Summary:

All articles in House section

BUILDING EFFICIENT SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND EQUITY ACT OF 1998
(House of Representatives - April 01, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H1885-H2030] BUILDING EFFICIENT SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND EQUITY ACT OF 1998 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 405 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2400. {time} 1340 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 consideration of the bill (H.R. 2400) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hastings of Washington in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control one hour, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) will each control 15 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, today we bring to the floor of the House historic legislation, legislation to rebuild America so that we have a 21st Century transportation system. In the 21st Century, from Seattle to Miami, from New York to California, America is growing and prospering, but our infrastructure is crumbling. There are two fundamental principles in the bill we bring to the floor today. The first is to put the trust back in the Transportation Trust Funds. It is to restore honesty in budgeting. Every time an American drives up to the gas pump and pays his or her 18.4-cent gas tax for every gallon of tax, that money goes into the Highway Trust Fund and Americans have the right to believe that the money in the trust fund is going to be spent to improve transportation. In fact, that is the way it was, until in the mid-1960's President Johnson got the idea that by not spending the money, he could help fund the Vietnam War. Indeed, it was Eisenhower and the Congress which made a Contract with America, and that contract was you pay your gas tax, and that money is spent to improve highways. Unfortunately, in the past several years, we have had a fraud perpetrated on the American people. It has not happened. We have had abate and switch. You pay your gas tax, but the money in the trust fund does not get spent. To the tune, there is $23 billion in that Highway Trust Fund today. Let me share with Members something that a very well-known American said when he was Governor of a State just a few years ago. He said this on television: ``The Congress took that money from us under a solemn contract to turn right around and give it back to the States to be spent on roads and highways. Instead, they are hoarding that money up there, and the only reason is to make the Federal deficit look smaller than it is. It is just wrong. It is wrong as it can be, and we ought to stop it. It is in violation of the solemn contract the national government has to the people who pay the tax.'' Governor Bill Clinton. So I say now to the Clinton Administration, join us. Keep your word. Help us unlock the trust fund so that money can go where it is supposed to go, to improve America's transportation infrastructure. We swallowed hard in the committee to get where we are today on a couple of very, very important compromises. We agreed that from this point forward, we would not count the interest in the trust fund. Over the life of this bill, that means $15 billion in debt reduction for our country. And we swallowed hard and said that approximately $10 billion of the $23 billion in the balance will be returned. {time} 1345 Put those two figures together and you get about $25 billion in reduced debt for the Federal Government, an amount which approximates the increase in spending that this bill proposes. We only spend the revenue coming into this Trust Fund from this point forward. We only spend the money paid for by the American people in the gas tax and the related transportation taxes. Indeed, the projection is we come in over the 6-year period about $3 billion under the revenue coming in. I would be quick to say, if there is no need to spend this money, we certainly should not spend it, nor should we let it accumulate. We should reduce the taxes. So that brings me to, really, the second fundamental principle: That is, what are the needs for investment in infrastructure for America? I suggest [[Page H1886]] that the needs are very clear; indeed, they are overwhelming. Twenty- seven percent of the highways in America are in poor condition. The average American is stuck 26 hours out of every year in traffic. That does not really tell the whole story. The average American living in one of our big cities is stuck in traffic, bumper-to-bumper traffic, over 50 hours in a year, more than a workweek in a year. Indeed, on our highways, 42,000 Americans are killed every year. Of that 42,000, 9,000 are kids killed on our highways. The experts tell us that 30 percent of highway fatalities are caused by bad roads. That is 12,000 Americans of the 42,000 being killed on our highways. Indeed, it is about 2,700 kids being killed on our highways as a result of bad roads. That is more than a commercial airplane crashing every day. What outrage we would have in this country if we had an airplane going down every day. In addition to those fatalities, 3.5 million Americans are injured on our highways every year. Get this. For every baby born in America today, six out of every ten babies born will be injured in an automobile accident during his lifetime, some of them more than once, if we do not change these accident rates. We can change them. In fact, something I do not talk about very much, but it is appropriate today, I think. Seventeen years ago I had my neck broken in an automobile accident. I was a passenger in a head-on collision. I had my seatbelt on. They tell me I would have been a dead duck if I did not. But I am one of the lucky ones. They put three pins in my neck and a bone out of my hip, and I am okay. I am here. I am alive. I am lucky. But 42,000 Americans every year are not so lucky. Nine thousand kids every year are not so lucky. I would wager that there is hardly anybody here in the Chamber today, or in our viewing audience, who has not had a loved one or a friend who has been killed or seriously injured in an automobile accident. What is the cost of a life? We cannot really put a price tag on it, but what we do know is that with the investment made in this bill over the life of this bill, the experts tell us we can cut fatalities by 4,000 people a year. It sounds like a lot. Actually, it is less than 10 percent of the fatality rate. It is doable. But do we want to cut the number in half, 2,000 lives a year? What is the value we put on a life? This bill will save lives. This bill will give our country a productivity boost, an economic boost. This bill will create jobs. For every $1 billion invested in highways, 42,500 jobs are created. Where is the support for this bill? It is not just here in the Congress, although I must tell the Members how thrilled I was to see the overwhelmingly positive vote we got just a few minutes ago on the rule for this bill. If Members would listen to the naysayers, we would have thought we would have squeaked through, at best. Instead, when the vote came, it was six to one overwhelmingly in support of the rule for this bill. Who are the supporters of this bill? It is not just us. All 50 governors have endorsed this bill. The League of Cities, the mayors have endorsed this bill. The counties have endorsed this bill. The State legislatures have endorsed this bill. Environmentalists have endorsed this bill. Safety groups have endorsed this bill. Labor, the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce, what a pair, have both endorsed this legislation. And, yes, the AAA, representing millions of the motoring public. Why have they supported this bill? Why do we have this extraordinary, broad, bipartisan support across America? Here is what the bill does: It unlocks the Transportation Trust Fund and says, from this point forward the revenue coming into the Trust Fund can be spent on transportation improvements. Do not believe this baloney that we somehow break the budget, that we somehow create a deficit. Not a penny can be spent if, indeed, the money is not there in the Trust Fund to be spent. Not a penny can be spent if we do not come back to this House with offsets from conference with the Senate. So it cannot bust the budget. Indeed, it can only spend the revenues flowing into the Trust Fund paid for by the motoring public. That is not all this does. This revises the formulas for the States by which they get their money in a much fairer way. We throw out the old formula, which by the way is based in part on some 1919 statistics, if Members can believe that. We throw that aside, and we create a much fairer formula based on transportation need as well as population. We raise the minimum allocation for each State to 95 percent, including all formula funds; and, for the first time, we include the projects in the minimum calculation. We also say that the donor States, since they are the ones putting up most of the money, the donor States get preference in discretionary grants. Beyond that, we recognize the need for more flexibility. There are those who argue we should give the program back to the States. We believe that goes too far, but we acknowledge the States and the cities should have much more flexibility, and we put it in this bill. In this bill we provide that, in every category going back, the States and cities can shift up to 50 percent of the money in that category into any other category, based on the State or city need. There are two modifications to that. We want to protect the environment, and so we provide that in CMAQ and enhancements the States must spend at least as much as they have been previously spending, but in the increased money, 50 percent of that can be flexed to other categories, should the States and the localities so choose. Beyond that, we recognize the national interest. Those who talk about just give it all back to the States I think must be living in 1920 instead of 1998. Interestingly, there is a greater Federal interest today to tie our country together than there has ever been. Why? Because we have more interstate travel than we have ever had. I love to refer to Oklahoma City as an example. Out there, you have two interstates that cross, 35 and 40. They were built to carry 60,000 vehicles a day. They are carrying 120,000 vehicles a day. But, to me, that is not the most interesting figure. To me, the most interesting figure is that 60 percent of the license plates on those vehicles are out-of-State license plates. It is not an Oklahoma problem. It is a national problem. Up in Seattle, coming out of the great port of Seattle-Tacoma, over 50 percent of the product coming in from Asia is shipped to Chicago and east. With tongue in cheek, I said they should change the name from the Port of Seattle to the Port of Chicago, the point being it is not a Washington State problem, it is a national problem. Across America today, 64 percent of truck traffic is interstate. There is a greater need to tie our country together to make sure that the national interest is protected, as well as State and local interest. That is why we bring this balanced bill to the floor. We also move some general fund transportation spending into the Trust Fund. We acknowledge that it is the Transportation Trust Fund that should be spending the money, so we do that. We also toughen up safety standards. We provide incentives to toughen the drunk driving laws. We say that .08 is important, and we provide incentives to the States to put .08 in their State laws. But we do not want to have an unfunded mandate. We hope the States will do it. We give them an incentive to do it. On the subject of projects, which it seems the media and the opponents, few though they are, have focused so much on projects, only 5 percent of the funds in this bill go to congressional high-priority projects. Stop and think about it. Eight percent of all the money in this bill goes back to the States. Seven percent goes downtown to the Secretary of Transportation. The last time I checked, angels in heaven did not make the decisions and are not making the decisions as to where to build highways and transit systems. It is a political process. There is nothing wrong with the States, the Governors, the legislators having 88 percent of the money to decide how it is going to be spent, or the Secretary having 7 percent of the pot. We think it is not unreasonable, in fact, it is very reasonable, to say that the Members of Congress who have to cast the tough votes on this legislation [[Page H1887]] should be able to recommend to our committee what projects are most important in their district, and we limit it to only 5 percent of the pot. In addition to that, when we hear those saying, well, it is the same old way it used to be done, that simply is not true. We have a 14-point vetting process where these projects must meet the standard, including support from the Secretary of Transportation in their home States, or their mayors, if it is in an MPO area. Let me emphasize that this tough 14-point vetting program was something that was actually proposed and put into effect by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Nick Joe Rahall), a Democrat. So this is bipartisan. It is something that makes a lot of sense; and, indeed, it is something that should be done. Further, let me emphasize, when we hear people saying, well, if you eliminate the projects you save money, Mr. Speaker, we do not save a penny. The money, if there are no projects, simply goes back to the States or downtown. It will be spent, but it will either be the faceless, nameless bureaucrats downtown or in State government or the Governors or the State legislators who will be spending the money. I do not know how many Members I have had come to me and say, for example, my State government is all Republican, and I am a Democrat. I do not get anything in my district, so I need a high-priority project. Or, conversely, my State is all Democrat; and, as a Republican, I do not get anything unless I have a high-priority project. Who knows better what is most important in their district than the Members of Congress from that district? In fact, I would respectfully suggest there is a bit of arrogance in those who say that somehow they know better what is important in their congressional districts than Members know. Indeed, I would suggest that if Members do not know what is really important to people in their congressional district, they are not going to be here very long. Let me emphasize that, while we have some disagreement in this bill, I have the greatest respect particularly for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. John Kasich), who is not a hypocrite and who said he does not want to see tax revenue spent on transportation. {time} 1400 I disagree with him. I disagree with him fundamentally. But he is straight. This is his position. He has a right to take that position. And he also, in the process, has not sent us letters requesting projects for his district while at the same time saying he opposes projects. He is not a hypocrite. He is an honorable person. Mr. Chairman, I had to take the well last week and to release and put in the Congressional Record letters from several Members of Congress who are castigating the projects but who have asked for multimillion dollar projects in their own congressional districts. Now, as hard as that is for Members to believe, it is in the Record. It is there for Members to see. Last week I challenged any Member to come forward and say that I had offered a project in exchange for his vote or, conversely, had threatened to take a project away if he did not vote with us. Nobody has responded to that challenge. Why? Because nobody can, because that is not the way we do business. Not only in this bill, but never in my career in the Congress have I ever made such a threat to a Member of Congress. So it is very regrettable that the people who on the one hand seem so self-righteous also are dealing very loosely with the truth. Maybe there is a little inconsistency there that I hope one might recognize. In fact, there is a great line in the book, ``The Hawaiians'' which I will clean up and paraphrase, which is, ``How I envy the pious. They can be such hypocrites and never even know it.'' Well, the good news is we have dealt fairly with every Member in this body. I must say I was surprised to see the gentleman from Delaware, my good friend, last week holding a press conference because he does not like our bill, calling it highway robbery. He is my good friend. We serve together on the Select Committee on Intelligence. Indeed, we are members of other organizations here on the Hill. But what short memories we seem to have. It was just last year that the Delaware delegation pushed through $2.3 billion for Amtrak. In fact it was described by some as one of the most bizarre, backhanded ways of funding a program that has ever been witnessed around here. But I did not take the floor and call it the ``great train robbery.'' No, I supported what they were trying to do because we were able to reform Amtrak, because Amtrak is important, not to some Members but to the gentleman from Delaware and the Members from the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak is important to them, so we supported that and we supported the reform of Amtrak. I must tell my colleagues that the reform bill spells out that those reforms must be accomplished by June 1, or all money for Amtrak stops, ceases, zero. I must also tell my colleagues that there are indications that those reforms may not be met by June 1, which means they will have to be back here on the floor again asking for forgiveness for Amtrak legislation or there will not be any money for Amtrak. Well, it seems to me that it might be a little more difficult next time around to get that kind of forgiveness for Amtrak. So I hope that those who sometimes seem to feel that nobody's cause but their own is worthwhile might take a little broader look at the transportation needs all across America. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge is another case in point. A billion dollars. We read so much in the local papers about the importance of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. Let me tell my colleagues there are over 30 interstate reconstruction projects, all of which cost more than a billion dollars. So while the Woodrow Wilson Bridge may well be important to the region here, there are other projects all across America which cost just as much on the interstate system, the highest priority system, and which are just as important to other Americans across this country. So I hope that, again, those who seem to see nothing of virtue in anything but their own particular interest might broaden their horizons just a bit. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues who know me best know I am not exactly a raving left-wing liberal spender. In fact the American Conservative Union gave me a 100 percent rating last year. I slipped in my NFIB rating. I only got a 97. I am not a big spender; I am a fiscal conservative. But there is a fundamental difference between spending tax dollars to build assets and pouring money down a rat hole. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I would say to my conservative Republican colleagues, look at the legacy of our party. It was Abraham Lincoln who in the midst of the Civil War signed the papers to create the first transcontinental railroad and who strongly supported Henry Clay's American system for capital improvements, for internal improvements. It was Teddy Roosevelt, the Panama Canal. George Will, the wonderful columnist, wrote a column a few months ago in which he observed that some conservatives today, had those same conservatives been back there with Teddy Roosevelt, probably would have voted against the Panama Canal. Well, I would like to think not, but it does not end with Teddy Roosevelt. Eisenhower, the father of the interstate system. Mr. Chairman, do my colleagues know who Eisenhower's floor manager was in the United States Senate to pass the interstate system? Prescott Bush, the father of President George Bush. To my conservative colleagues I say we have a legacy here of building America and today is the day we have the opportunity to do it. Today is the day we have the opportunity to put honesty back in budgeting. To spend only the trust fund money that is coming in. To save lives. To remove congestion and to increase productivity. The revenue exists. Let me close by sharing with my colleagues something that Stephen Ambrose, the historian, wrote in a book that just came out recently. It is a wonderful book entitled ``Citizen Soldiers.'' It is a book about the soldiers of America who in World War II slogged their way through Europe to win victory for our country and for the allies. He wrote in the conclusion of his wonderful book about those World War [[Page H1888]] II veterans when they came home, and here is what he said about them: These were the men who built modern America. They wanted to construct. They built the interstate highway system, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the suburbs so scorned by the sociologists but so successful with the people, and much more. So let us on a bipartisan basis in this Chamber today, let us in our time be the builders of a better America as we move into a new and exciting 21st century, so that our children's children 50 years from now might be able to look back and say: See, this they did for us. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, 42 years ago in this Chamber a Democratic Congress, united with a Republican President, launched a new experiment in transportation, one that would prove to be enormously successful in improving America's mobility and expanding its economy and moving transportation from border to border and coast to coast in a way that never had been accomplished before. Today we stand at the beginning of a new century and a new millennium. The legislation we bring to the floor today takes us beyond the vision of the interstate system and beyond the vision that was created in ISTEA in 1991 and to a new century, a new millennium, a new investment with renewed vigor in a future America. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) on the extraordinary job he has accomplished of leading us through the thicket of conflicting issues, values, ideas, demands, interests and pressures to do the right thing for America. He traced the evolution of the transportation system, of this legislation, in a very heartfelt, deeply sensitive and deeply committed way just a moment ago. His words are a measure for all time. What we do in this legislation is not just to continue but to extend beyond where we have been in our transportation mix of the last 42 years. Mr. Chairman, we continue the investment in America that is the fundamental driving force for this transportation sector, which is 10 percent of our gross domestic product. We continue the programs of this country that we initiated in ISTEA that have been so enormously successful. We continue the environmental stewardship. We address safety and, indeed, had we not addressed safety with the interstate highway program in 1956, we would be killing 110,000 people on America's highways today. We provide continued equity in our transportation program for minorities for labor, for construction labor, and for the States through our distribution formula. This is a bill that is good for all America, for all time, to take us into that next century. Not a bridge of fiber optic cable, but a bridge built on concrete, asphalt, steel and goodwill and good vision and a good sense of direction for America. Transportation means economic growth, means mobility, and it means opportunity for America. That is what this legislation is all about. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering legislation that, perhaps more than any bill we will consider this Congress, touches the lives of each and every constituent of each and every Member of this House. Mr. Chairman, until something goes wrong, we often overlook the impact that transportation has on our daily lives. No matter who we are or where we live, we rely on an efficient and safe transportation network. Whether we live in an urban area where transit provides a way to get to and from work; whether we farm land in a rural area and need to get crops to market quickly; whether we own a business that needs to truck in materials and get finished goods out over the roads; whether we are a young mother worrying about safely driving our young children to school each day; or whether we load up the family and go down the highway on our annual family vacation in Disney World or the Grand Canyon, we need a good transportation system in the United States for daily commutes, to transport freight around the country, and to provide opportunities for tourism and for recreation. Transportation is something that we use every day, and it provides a safe and efficient way of getting around and moving goods, and it is something that our constituents expect. Mr. Chairman, today we have an opportunity to pass legislation that truly does provide tangible, real benefits for all Americans. Some have tried to attack the bill before us based on the funding levels and budget implications of authorizations for projects in various Members' districts. But those critics ignore one important fact: all the spending in this bill is fully supported by the gas taxes paid and collected in the Highway Trust Fund. In fact, spending is actually below trust fund revenues over the next 6 years. Spending in this bill is linked to the amount of taxes collected in the trust fund, taxes collected from the motoring public and which can be used only for transportation purposes. Spending increases in this bill are so large in part because we are finally using the gas taxes for transportation instead of hoarding them in the trust fund to subsidize other spending. The current trust fund balance is about $23 billion. Under the budget agreement last year it would have grown to $70 billion. What is fair about that, government borrowing from the trust fund to spend on all kinds of things, adding to the national debt? Gas taxes are user fees collected to fund transportation. They should either be used for that purpose, as BESTEA does, or the gas tax should be cut. {time} 1415 Now, some have used the term ``hypocrisy'' to describe this bill. Well, the true hypocrisy is taxing the American public, saying we will use those taxes only for transportation, and then not living up to our part of the bargain. That is why America has become so skeptical about Washington. We are ending that practice in this bill. We should not lose sight of the fact that since BESTEA more fully spends the new gas taxes coming into the trust fund, we have agreed to write off a total of $9 billion of the outstanding $22 billion cash balance in the Highway Trust Fund, and we have agreed to forgo interest that would otherwise be credited to this trust fund saving over $14 billion in national indebtedness. No one has been talking about that, but it reduces the outstanding debt of the United States by over $20 billion. We have significantly reformed distribution formulas to provide for the more equitable allocation of funds among the States. Funding formulas are updated so that we no longer use historic shares to distribute funds, and instead we use up-to-date transportation data that more accurately reflects usage and need. Minimum allocation for donor States is increased to 95 percent. Several other donor State funding provisions are included. A very significant reform is that for the first time projects are included in the minimum allocation calculation so States cannot be severely disadvantaged or advantaged whether they have or do not have projects. Finally, donee States do not lose in terms of actual dollars received, but in fact increase substantially over the amounts received, over the past 6 years of ISTEA. Under BESTEA, we are able to increase funding for clean air programs. We increase by $2 billion funding for safety and safety education programs, and we have done an increase in transit funding by 43 percent. It contains significant reforms to streamline project delivery and reduce red tape, including coordinating environmental reviews, reducing project approval requirements and eliminating programmatic responsibilities of Department of Transportation regional offices. Mr. Chairman, passage of BESTEA today means Americans traveling on the roads will be safer. It means that we will take a step forward in sustaining and improving the economic prosperity that we as Americans are so fortunate to enjoy. And it means that we will be competitive in a global economy that relies on efficient transportation. We quite literally need good [[Page H1889]] highways, bridges and public transit to keep us moving ahead into the future. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), ranking member on the Subcommittee on Aviation. Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2400, the Building Efficiency Surface Transportation and Equity Act, commonly referred to as BESTEA. First, I want to thank our chairman and ranking members for all of their hard work, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). They have worked together to create a strong bipartisan bill that provides the necessary funding to maintain and improve our Nation's infrastructure. I am sure that during the debate today, a few of our colleagues will try to say that this important bill busts the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. This is simply not true. This bill is paid for out of the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund is supported by fuel taxes paid by motorists. Therefore, this bill is paid for each time motorists go to pay for their gasoline. BESTEA does not bust the balanced budget. BESTEA simply spends down the large unspent surplus in the Highway Trust Fund. Under this bill, dedicated gas taxes are used for their dedicated purpose, to address the transportation needs of cities and States throughout this Nation. This is absolutely necessary because America's transportation needs are staggering. Our Nation's transportation infrastructure in many areas is crumbling and it is in urgent need of repair, mainly because we as a Nation have not invested enough to maintain and improve our transportation system. In fact, in the last 30 years transportation spending as a percentage of the Federal budget has been cut in half. Yet investing in transportation means investing in America's future. Economic studies show that every dollar invested in the highway system yields $2.60 in economic benefit. Other countries are already investing billions in their core infrastructure. Fortunately, BESTEA does the same for America. Mr. Chairman, as I said this morning, BESTEA is a good bipartisan bill. It will provide better, safer roads. It will provide new and improved public transportation systems. It will improve air quality by reducing traffic congestion and by promoting public transit. It will provide good jobs for middle-class Americans. It will ensure America's future as a world leader by maintaining and improving our world class surface transportation system. I strongly urge all my colleagues to vote to invest in America's future and vote in favor of H.R. 2400. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I almost find myself uncontrollable here in recognizing and giving 5 minutes to the Honorable John Paul Hammerschmidt, a former member of Congress and a former ranking member of our committee, the man who would be chairman if he were still here, so I want to acknowledge he is in the Chamber and wish him well. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to join in the acknowledgment of our colleague, one of the architects of ISTEA that brings us to the floor today, and an extraordinarily distinguished Member of this House and of our committee for so very, very many years. We owe him a great debt of gratitude. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) chairman of one of the important appropriations subcommittees. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding the time and join in welcoming our friend, Mr. Hammerschmidt, back to this Chamber. Mr. Chairman, the highway bill before us today opens doors for the Nation and the people of Kentucky. First, it unlocks the Highway Trust Fund, providing the money needed to invest in our national highway system and to boost spending in donor States like Kentucky. BESTEA gives Kentucky 90 cents back on every dollar that we send in to the trust fund as opposed to 77 cents they received under ISTEA. Overall, Kentucky will receive on average approximately $479 million per year in highway funding. That is 70 percent more than our share over the last 5 years. Second, it launches the I-66 project in Kentucky, making the first major dollar investment toward construction. I-66 will open up southern and eastern Kentucky to the rest of the Nation, creating thousands of jobs. Third, monies included in the House and Senate version of this bill virtually guarantee that we will make substantial progress on the unfinished sections of the Appalachian development road system, which is vital to our region. Of special importance is that this bill will save lives. BESTEA gives States the ability to improve the safety of many poorly designed roads and bridges. This will save hundreds of lives in Kentucky alone. Simply put, BESTEA is the best deal for Kentucky, the best deal for donor States and the best deal for our Nation. I congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the other members of the committee for a great job on a great bill. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), ranking member on the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, who has contributed so vigorously and so many dedicated, devoted hours to the shaping of this legislation. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I commend the gentleman as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), for their excellent work on this legislation. As we begin debate on this legislation, we are indeed at a crossroads in this country. We can decide whether we want to retreat from the transportation needs of the new century and fail to make the necessary investments in our highway and transit infrastructure, or we can rise to the challenge and dedicate the necessary resources to these endeavors. Those of us who bring this legislation forth today are seeking to rise to that challenge, to keep faith with the American public, to restore integrity and restore trust back into the Highway Trust Fund and to make the necessary investments in America. To be clear, this is not just about an investment in concrete and asphalt, but one about investment into our children, one about investment into our environment, and an investment into the very social fabric of this Nation. This legislation involves the very standard of living we in this country wish to enjoy, and it entails the type of legacy we wish to leave to future generations, our children. Poor road pavement, outdated design standards, and the lack of safety enhancement present a very real threat to the motoring public. In parts of my district, school buses have collided with trucks for these very reasons, prematurely extinguishing the innocent lives of our younger generation. I know tragedies like this have happened elsewhere around the country. This bill makes an investment into improving those roads and providing more safety features so that we can better ensure the well- being of our children. Our environment, let us look at what this bill does. Congestion plagues our cities, both large and small. Air quality deteriorates as vehicles stack up behind each other with motors idling. And tempers flare erupting into road rage affecting so many parts of this country. This bill makes an investment into improving our environment by advancing alternative means of transportation such as transit, bicycle and pedestrian pathways, and innovative new intelligent transportation systems. Our very standard of living, let us look at what this bill does. In order to compete globally, companies are demanding production efficiency. It is estimated that more than one-half of U.S. manufacturers are using just-in-time inventory systems. This approach requires an efficient transportation system. [[Page H1890]] This legislation makes a fundamental investment into improving our transportation systems, not just highways, but transportation links that are intermodal in nature, to better ensure the smooth flow of goods, both domestic and international markets. It has been said that ISTEA represented a revolution in how we viewed our surface transportation needs. Over the course of the last 6 years ISTEA, as implemented, has produced some fundamental changes in the Federal role in transportation. It empowered our local communities. If ISTEA was indeed a revolution, then this bill known as BESTEA is a revelation; a revelation because it exposes the Highway Trust Fund for what it truly is, not an account to be used to mask the true size of the Federal deficit, or make our budget look brighter. Not a pot of funds to be held hostage to the whims and the caprices of our budgeteers, but rather as a trust fund, a trust fund paid into by the American motorists for the express purpose of receiving a better return in building our road and bridges in this country. I urge adoption of this entire bill. I think it is what the American public wants. It is what our children and future generations want. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble). Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to recognize the tremendous steps the committee is taking to significantly to improve donor States rate of return in this bill. BESTEA distributes funds equitably among the States by reforming the highway funding formulas so that they are based upon relevant transportation factors. Specifically, there are provisions in this bill which will guarantee that no State will fall below a 90 percent return on its contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. In addition, the committee repealed the penalty on discretionary grants for States that receive minimum allocation funding. While BESTEA is not perfect, Mr. Chairman, it certainly goes a long way to address the critical need of donor States, and I hope we can continue to work together to that end. This bill is not only about saving lives, it is about being honest with the American people. Many Members in the Chamber today will claim that this is a budget buster. I am a fiscal conservative, Mr. Chairman. This charge is simply not true. When Congress set up the Highway Trust Fund, it created a contract with the American people by instituting a gas tax with the promise that these taxes would only be used for transportation improvements. When these taxes are used to mask the size of the deficit or to increase welfare spending or foreign aid, the contract is broken and American lives are put at risk. Using the gas tax for other social spending is wrong and dishonest. We must, in fact, spend these taxes on what we promised we would spend them on. It is an honesty question and it is time to be honest with the American people. If we are not going to expend these monies for the purpose that was intended, then let us repeal the tax. Mr. Chairman, it is time to spend the Highway Trust Fund where it is supposed to be spent: Improving roads and enhancing the safety of the American motorists who use those roads. {time} 1430 Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for yielding me this time. I also want to commend and congratulate both he and our distinguished Chairman for bringing this truly bipartisan and truly historic bill to the floor of the House of Representatives. I also want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and, of course, our ranking member on the subcommittee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to understand that this is not just a highway bill. By establishing funding levels that are fiscally sound, it provides necessary resources to meet America's diverse transportation infrastructure needs. BESTEA maintains the enhancement and CMAQ provisions set forth in ISTEA. It provides for an equitable distribution of funds among States, it improves safety on our highways, provides flexibility for States and local areas, and it benefits urban and rural America. Mr. Chairman, it is important to point out that these varied and critical goals can only be met because of a provision in the bill that calls for phasing in spending the 4.3 cents fuel tax recently returned to the Trust Fund and taking the Trust Fund, itself, off budget beginning in 1999. The monies that are actually spent on our country's infrastructure have been consistently and substantially less than what is collected. To call this money a dedicated tax and then disregard its intended use is a fraud. Clearly, our country has enormous transportation infrastructure needs. We cannot afford to look the other way while revenues committed to address these needs go elsewhere or sit fallow. That money is desperately needed, and it exists in a Trust Fund. We do not need to find the money to pay for our infrastructure. We simply have to stop others from spending it for unintended purposes. Mr. Chairman, I must tell my colleagues, as a Representative from an urban community, I am greatly encouraged by the increase in transit funding provided for in BESTEA. Ridership on computer and light rail has grown steadily and significantly. New transit starts are exploding. And as such, in each of the last 4 years of the bill, $6.4 billion is spent on transit, nearly a 50-percent increase above current funding levels. In the current political climate of decreased Federal spending, committing such revenues speaks to the recognition of the pivotal role mass transit must play if we are to best utilize our resources, transportation and otherwise. Perhaps the best illustration of the innumerable benefits investments in our Nation's infrastructure and, more specifically, in transit can yield is found in the welfare-to-work provisions of the bill. This critically important program helps restore our cities and return our people to productive use by providing them with the ability to physically get to where the jobs are. People in my city of Philadelphia know all too well that, as companies abandon our cities for the suburbs, they take their jobs and opportunities with them, leaving unemployed city dwellers. In fact, two-thirds of all new jobs created are in the suburbs. Furthermore, less than 6 percent of families receiving benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Family program own cars. This means that 94 percent must rely on transit systems to get them to work. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my wholehearted support for H.R. 2400, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act of 1997. Let me first congratulate Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Oberstar, Chairman Petri, and Ranking Member Rahall for the truly remarkable job that they have done. Reauthorization of any bill of this magnitude is always an arduous and delicate task. But the validity of some of the inherently competing interests associated with this program, and the need for those interests to be both acknowledged and reconciled, created a monumental assignment for those charged with the reauthorization of ISTEA. What they bring to the floor today, surpasses any reasonable expectations held by those of us all too familiar with the scope and complexity of the bill. In BESTEA, the enormous needs of our nation's infrastructure have been addressed, while maintaining the integrity of the program itself. The result is a bipartisan product the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the whole House, should be proud to endorse. Finally, with this bill, we can do what we have promised every American that we would do when we asked them to pay into the Highway Trust Fund at the gas pump- adequately build and maintain our nation's crumbling infrastructure. This is not just a highway bill. By establishing funding levels that are fiscally sound it provides the necessary resources to meet America's diverse infrastructure needs. BESTEA maintains the enhancement and CMAQ provisions set forth in ISTEA. It provides for an equitable distribution of funds among states, improves safety on our highways, focuses on national priorities, streamlines program delivery, [[Page H1891]] and reinvents the DOT. The bill provides flexibility for states and local areas, benefits urban and rural America and supports technology development needed as we enter the 21st century. Mr. Chairman, it is important to point out that these varied and critical goals can only be met because of a provision in the bill that calls for phasing-in spending the 4.3 cents fuel tax recently returned to the Trust fund and taking the Trust fund, itself, off-budget, beginning in 1999. When Congress established the Highway Trust Fund in 1956, it was a deliberate policy decision to impose a user fee funding mechanism and a trust fund, rather than continuing to support transportation infrastructure programs out of general revenues. The Highway Trust fund ensured that the money was collected from those benefitting from the improvements by taxing gasoline, diesel and special fuels as well as heavy trucks and tires. By creating a trust fund, Congress was presumably guaranteeing a promise to those contributing to the fund that the money would be dedicated to transportation infrastructure improvements. This promise has blatantly been ignored for far too long. The monies that are actually spent on our country's infrastructure are consistently, and substantially, less than what is collected. As a result, an enormous surplus has been allowed to accumulate in the Trust Fund, much to the delight of our Nation's bookkeepers. This practice of locking up billion of dollars in treasury notes that should rightfully be stimulating our economy has been likened to a shell game, and amounts to nothing more than fraud on the taxpayer. To call this money a dedicated tax and then disregard its intended use is fraudulent. I can tell you as a sixteen year veteran of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that our nation's infrastructure can no longer afford to pay the price for dishonest bookkeeping. The Department of Transportation estimates that simply maintaining current conditions on our highway, bridge, and transit systems will require annual investments of $57 billion, an increase of 41%. These conditions are indisputably unacceptable and unsafe. In my home state of Pennsylvania for example, more than 70% of our roads were rated fair to poor. Over 40% of our bridges were deemed deficient. These statistics are not inconsequential. Inadequate roads and bridges are a factor in traffic accidents that result annually in over 12,000 highway deaths nationwide. Metropolitan congestion alone costs our nation more than $40 million annually. Transit needs are at least as critical. One-third of rail maintenance yards, stations, and bridges, and almost one-half of transit buildings are still in poor or fair condition. Rolling stock needs immediate replacement as the average fleet age for all classes of bus and paratransit vehicles has exceeded the useful life of the vehicles. Additionally, 51% of rural buses are overage and more than 9,000 urban buses need immediate replacement. According to the DOT, to improve the condition of our nation's infrastructure to optimal levels, would require annual investments of $80 billion. Clearly, our country has enormous needs. We cannot afford to look the other way while revenues committed to address these needs go elsewhere or sit fallow. Perhaps, if our nation's roads and bridges weren't crumbling we could indulge our colleagues as they continued to steal money dedicated to infrastructure so that they could claim, and take credit for, a balanced budget. But we can't. That money is desperately needed, and it exists in the trust fund. We don't need to find the money to pay for our infrastructure, we simply have to stop others from spending it for unintended purposes. If that results in a budget that is not balanced, I would suggest that my colleagues who serve on the appropriate committee should take a closer look and find offsets that would make up for the money they planned to divert from this user fee. Mr. Chairman, I must tell you that, as a Representative from an urban community, I am greatly encouraged by the increase in transit funding provided for in BESTEA. Ridership on commuter and light rail has grown steadily and significantly. New transit starts are exploding. In fact, our committee received over 150 requests for these type of projects just this year, totaling over $25 billion. As such, in each of the last four years of the bill, $6.4 billion is spent on transit, nearly a fifty percent increase above current funding levels. In the current political climate of decreased federal spending, committing such revenue speaks to the recognition of the pivotal role mass transit must play if we are to best utilize our resources-transportation and otherwise. Perhaps the best illustration of the innumerable benefits investment in our nation's infrastructure--and more specifically, in transit, can yield, is found in the Welfare-to-Work provision of the bill. This critically important program, helps restore our cities--and return our people--to productive use, by providing them with the ability to physically get to where the jobs are. People in my city of Philadelphia know all too well that, as companies abandon our cities for the suburbs, they take their jobs and opportunities with them, leaving unemployed city dwellers. In fact, two-thirds of all new jobs created are in the suburbs. Furthermore, research by the U.S. Department of Transportation found that less than 6% of families receiving benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program own cars. This means that 94% must rely on transit systems to get them to work. In the past, those of us who represent cities, have watched, with great frustration, the impact on our community as these companies leave for the suburbs. We have focused a great deal of energy on convincing companies to stay in or come to our city. While this is important, it is not always possible and, perhaps in our zealousness, we have not recognized the benefits of any other alternatives. If a company can or will not stay in the city, there is still an enormous economic benefit to be had, should people be able to commute out to the suburbs. This is the impetus behind the welfare-to-work program. And we have seen it work in cities like Chicago. Suburban Job-Link, working with Chicago's PACE bus company, began serving the needs of unemployed Chicago residents in 1971. The program has proven to yield economic rewards. For every 1,000 workers employed at suburban manufacturing jobs, $25 million in pay and benefits annually flow back into inner-city neighborhoods. Mr. Chairman, again, I would like to applaud the leadership of our committee for their truly remarkable and Historic accomplishment. A year ago, it seemed a nearly impossible task to meet the very real, diverse, and often competing needs of our nation's infrastructure. But Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar held firm to their principles, arguing tirelessly that integrity be restored to the Trust Fund. It is with admiration that I acknowledge their achievement and without any hesitation that I offer my support for the BESTEA bill. This bipartisan effort and product represents the very best our committee has to offer, and reinforces both the pleasure and pride with which I have served on it for the past sixteen years. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf). Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Chairman on an outstanding bill and ask if the Chairman will enter into a colloquy? Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I will be pleased to. Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, as the Chairman has noted, the volume of international trade passing through Washington State's ports has snarled traffic at dozens of at-grade rail-highway crossing in the Puget Sound region. As the Chairman knows, public and private interests have come together to propose a series of grade-crossing projects and port-access projects that we refer to as the ``fast corridor'' program. Does the Chairman agree that section 115 of the bill, the National Corridor Planning and Development Program, was designed to help projects like the fast corridor? Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would certainly agree with the gentleman. I have seen the problem firsthand there. As the gentleman from Washington has observed, I have first-hand knowledge of the special mobility problems in the Puget Sound region. The Fast Corridor Program was developed to address that problem. Section 136 of the bill designates the ``Everett-Tacoma Fast Corridor'' as a ``high-priority corridor.'' With this designation, the fast corridor would be eligible for funding under section 115, as you have already pointed out. Section 115 was designed with projects like the fast corridor in mind and I am certain that it would be an ideal candidate. I commend the gentleman for his initiative on this matter and for the leadership he brings to transportation issues in the region. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kim), a distinguished member of the committee. Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I have heard critics saying today that we are stealing money from other programs to rebuild our highways and bridges. Now, come on. Let us be honest with the American people. The money is already there. The American people pay for it with the gas tax money. In 1956, Congress made a simple contract with the American people that gas taxes would be used for highways and bridges. Seven years ago, Congress broke the promise and diverted gas tax [[Page H1892]] money to foreign aid and other programs. Southern Californians have paid dearly for that ever since. Southern Californians spend more time stuck in traffic than anyone else in the country. And there is another argument. I am tired of hearing this bill is full of pork. It is not about pork. It is about saving people's lives. Every year 14,000 people are killed in roads that are too narrow, too congested, or simply too dangerous for existing traffic. None of these people have to die. In my district, there is a road known as ``Blood Alley.'' Eight lanes of freeway are crammed into a two-lane country road when it crosses the county line. About 10 people die each year on this three-mile stretch of road because the counties do not want each other's traffic. Our bill includes $13 million to widen this Blood Alley and save lives. Fixing Blood Alley is our responsibility. It is not pork. Our bill saves lives and restores our promise to the American people. This bill forces Washington to keep its promise and fix highways with the gas and tax money. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development, a valiant, vigorous member of our committee and advocate for Buy America. Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, $217 billion is being invested in America, not overseas. To put some perspective on it, our trade deficits with China in the next 6 years will exceed $300 billion. Now let us call it like it is. Everybody is talking about pork. I was called the king of pork on ISTEA because I got five bridges funded. One of those bridges collapsed last week. One of my constituents almost got killed. Thank God, no one got killed in my district. They do not call that bridge pork today. Now let us put the hay where the goats can reach it. To all of these political purists in the Congress, here is how they would have it: We would fight to get the money for the States. The local politicians would have press conferences and announce the projects. Then they would brag how they got the money and that there was no Federal money in it. And then they will run against us. Beam me up. I do not apologize. In 1986, I passed the amendment that increased the minimum allocation to donor States. And last year in Ohio, 28 major projects, I did not get one of them; and we are the most deserving. I do not apologize for any damn thing. They can call me anything they want on this House floor, but if we do not take care of our district, no one is going to take care of our district. Stand up today, and you fight for your district. That is what it is about. This is not the Rotary, my colleagues. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, 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, I rise today in strong support of BESTEA, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act. I would like to point out to all of my colleagues and to the American people that BESTEA is green tea. The reason I have attached the label of ``green tea'' to the bill before us this afternoon is because the legislation provides more funding to improve the quality of America's environment than any approved by this body in the last decade. This is an environmentally sensitive and an environmentally friendly bill. And that is good for the American people, because they expect us to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink and the food we eat. Nothing is more important than that in terms of our assignment. Green tea contains over $40 billion for the transit program, the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality program, commonly known as CMAQ; the Transportation Enhancement Program; the Recreational Trails Program; and the National Scenic Byways Program. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the Chairman, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, are to be applauded for their obvious concerns about America's transportation policy and how they have incorporated a sensitivity to the environment in this measure. In fact, the environmental community strongly endorses BESTEA. Let me repeat this point. The environmental community strongly endorses BESTEA because they, too, know it is green tea. The Environmental Defense Fund, the League of American Bicyclists, the National Trust of Historic Preservation, the National Parks and Conservation Association, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Rails to Trails Program, Scenic America and the Sierra Club all strongly support BESTEA because they, too, know it is green tea. Green tea provides nearly $4 billion for the transportation enhancement program. This program provides needed funding to communities to build bicycle and pedestrian facilities and renovate historic transportation facilities. Green tea provides nearly $10 billion for the Congestion and Mitigation Air Quality Program over a 6- year period. This is a good bill. It deserves support. It has earned the support of the environmental community. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation. Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, this is a great day for all of us when it comes to transportation and the future of transportation needs. We know what they are doing in Europe, we know what they are doing in Asia, we know what they are doing in other countries around the world when it comes to infrastructure; and we are falling further and further behind. As one of the so-called donor States, I do know that we have been underserved, short-changed in the past. And I am pleased to hear what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuste

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

BUILDING EFFICIENT SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND EQUITY ACT OF 1998
(House of Representatives - April 01, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H1885-H2030] BUILDING EFFICIENT SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND EQUITY ACT OF 1998 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 405 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2400. {time} 1340 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 consideration of the bill (H.R. 2400) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hastings of Washington in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control one hour, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) will each control 15 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, today we bring to the floor of the House historic legislation, legislation to rebuild America so that we have a 21st Century transportation system. In the 21st Century, from Seattle to Miami, from New York to California, America is growing and prospering, but our infrastructure is crumbling. There are two fundamental principles in the bill we bring to the floor today. The first is to put the trust back in the Transportation Trust Funds. It is to restore honesty in budgeting. Every time an American drives up to the gas pump and pays his or her 18.4-cent gas tax for every gallon of tax, that money goes into the Highway Trust Fund and Americans have the right to believe that the money in the trust fund is going to be spent to improve transportation. In fact, that is the way it was, until in the mid-1960's President Johnson got the idea that by not spending the money, he could help fund the Vietnam War. Indeed, it was Eisenhower and the Congress which made a Contract with America, and that contract was you pay your gas tax, and that money is spent to improve highways. Unfortunately, in the past several years, we have had a fraud perpetrated on the American people. It has not happened. We have had abate and switch. You pay your gas tax, but the money in the trust fund does not get spent. To the tune, there is $23 billion in that Highway Trust Fund today. Let me share with Members something that a very well-known American said when he was Governor of a State just a few years ago. He said this on television: ``The Congress took that money from us under a solemn contract to turn right around and give it back to the States to be spent on roads and highways. Instead, they are hoarding that money up there, and the only reason is to make the Federal deficit look smaller than it is. It is just wrong. It is wrong as it can be, and we ought to stop it. It is in violation of the solemn contract the national government has to the people who pay the tax.'' Governor Bill Clinton. So I say now to the Clinton Administration, join us. Keep your word. Help us unlock the trust fund so that money can go where it is supposed to go, to improve America's transportation infrastructure. We swallowed hard in the committee to get where we are today on a couple of very, very important compromises. We agreed that from this point forward, we would not count the interest in the trust fund. Over the life of this bill, that means $15 billion in debt reduction for our country. And we swallowed hard and said that approximately $10 billion of the $23 billion in the balance will be returned. {time} 1345 Put those two figures together and you get about $25 billion in reduced debt for the Federal Government, an amount which approximates the increase in spending that this bill proposes. We only spend the revenue coming into this Trust Fund from this point forward. We only spend the money paid for by the American people in the gas tax and the related transportation taxes. Indeed, the projection is we come in over the 6-year period about $3 billion under the revenue coming in. I would be quick to say, if there is no need to spend this money, we certainly should not spend it, nor should we let it accumulate. We should reduce the taxes. So that brings me to, really, the second fundamental principle: That is, what are the needs for investment in infrastructure for America? I suggest [[Page H1886]] that the needs are very clear; indeed, they are overwhelming. Twenty- seven percent of the highways in America are in poor condition. The average American is stuck 26 hours out of every year in traffic. That does not really tell the whole story. The average American living in one of our big cities is stuck in traffic, bumper-to-bumper traffic, over 50 hours in a year, more than a workweek in a year. Indeed, on our highways, 42,000 Americans are killed every year. Of that 42,000, 9,000 are kids killed on our highways. The experts tell us that 30 percent of highway fatalities are caused by bad roads. That is 12,000 Americans of the 42,000 being killed on our highways. Indeed, it is about 2,700 kids being killed on our highways as a result of bad roads. That is more than a commercial airplane crashing every day. What outrage we would have in this country if we had an airplane going down every day. In addition to those fatalities, 3.5 million Americans are injured on our highways every year. Get this. For every baby born in America today, six out of every ten babies born will be injured in an automobile accident during his lifetime, some of them more than once, if we do not change these accident rates. We can change them. In fact, something I do not talk about very much, but it is appropriate today, I think. Seventeen years ago I had my neck broken in an automobile accident. I was a passenger in a head-on collision. I had my seatbelt on. They tell me I would have been a dead duck if I did not. But I am one of the lucky ones. They put three pins in my neck and a bone out of my hip, and I am okay. I am here. I am alive. I am lucky. But 42,000 Americans every year are not so lucky. Nine thousand kids every year are not so lucky. I would wager that there is hardly anybody here in the Chamber today, or in our viewing audience, who has not had a loved one or a friend who has been killed or seriously injured in an automobile accident. What is the cost of a life? We cannot really put a price tag on it, but what we do know is that with the investment made in this bill over the life of this bill, the experts tell us we can cut fatalities by 4,000 people a year. It sounds like a lot. Actually, it is less than 10 percent of the fatality rate. It is doable. But do we want to cut the number in half, 2,000 lives a year? What is the value we put on a life? This bill will save lives. This bill will give our country a productivity boost, an economic boost. This bill will create jobs. For every $1 billion invested in highways, 42,500 jobs are created. Where is the support for this bill? It is not just here in the Congress, although I must tell the Members how thrilled I was to see the overwhelmingly positive vote we got just a few minutes ago on the rule for this bill. If Members would listen to the naysayers, we would have thought we would have squeaked through, at best. Instead, when the vote came, it was six to one overwhelmingly in support of the rule for this bill. Who are the supporters of this bill? It is not just us. All 50 governors have endorsed this bill. The League of Cities, the mayors have endorsed this bill. The counties have endorsed this bill. The State legislatures have endorsed this bill. Environmentalists have endorsed this bill. Safety groups have endorsed this bill. Labor, the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce, what a pair, have both endorsed this legislation. And, yes, the AAA, representing millions of the motoring public. Why have they supported this bill? Why do we have this extraordinary, broad, bipartisan support across America? Here is what the bill does: It unlocks the Transportation Trust Fund and says, from this point forward the revenue coming into the Trust Fund can be spent on transportation improvements. Do not believe this baloney that we somehow break the budget, that we somehow create a deficit. Not a penny can be spent if, indeed, the money is not there in the Trust Fund to be spent. Not a penny can be spent if we do not come back to this House with offsets from conference with the Senate. So it cannot bust the budget. Indeed, it can only spend the revenues flowing into the Trust Fund paid for by the motoring public. That is not all this does. This revises the formulas for the States by which they get their money in a much fairer way. We throw out the old formula, which by the way is based in part on some 1919 statistics, if Members can believe that. We throw that aside, and we create a much fairer formula based on transportation need as well as population. We raise the minimum allocation for each State to 95 percent, including all formula funds; and, for the first time, we include the projects in the minimum calculation. We also say that the donor States, since they are the ones putting up most of the money, the donor States get preference in discretionary grants. Beyond that, we recognize the need for more flexibility. There are those who argue we should give the program back to the States. We believe that goes too far, but we acknowledge the States and the cities should have much more flexibility, and we put it in this bill. In this bill we provide that, in every category going back, the States and cities can shift up to 50 percent of the money in that category into any other category, based on the State or city need. There are two modifications to that. We want to protect the environment, and so we provide that in CMAQ and enhancements the States must spend at least as much as they have been previously spending, but in the increased money, 50 percent of that can be flexed to other categories, should the States and the localities so choose. Beyond that, we recognize the national interest. Those who talk about just give it all back to the States I think must be living in 1920 instead of 1998. Interestingly, there is a greater Federal interest today to tie our country together than there has ever been. Why? Because we have more interstate travel than we have ever had. I love to refer to Oklahoma City as an example. Out there, you have two interstates that cross, 35 and 40. They were built to carry 60,000 vehicles a day. They are carrying 120,000 vehicles a day. But, to me, that is not the most interesting figure. To me, the most interesting figure is that 60 percent of the license plates on those vehicles are out-of-State license plates. It is not an Oklahoma problem. It is a national problem. Up in Seattle, coming out of the great port of Seattle-Tacoma, over 50 percent of the product coming in from Asia is shipped to Chicago and east. With tongue in cheek, I said they should change the name from the Port of Seattle to the Port of Chicago, the point being it is not a Washington State problem, it is a national problem. Across America today, 64 percent of truck traffic is interstate. There is a greater need to tie our country together to make sure that the national interest is protected, as well as State and local interest. That is why we bring this balanced bill to the floor. We also move some general fund transportation spending into the Trust Fund. We acknowledge that it is the Transportation Trust Fund that should be spending the money, so we do that. We also toughen up safety standards. We provide incentives to toughen the drunk driving laws. We say that .08 is important, and we provide incentives to the States to put .08 in their State laws. But we do not want to have an unfunded mandate. We hope the States will do it. We give them an incentive to do it. On the subject of projects, which it seems the media and the opponents, few though they are, have focused so much on projects, only 5 percent of the funds in this bill go to congressional high-priority projects. Stop and think about it. Eight percent of all the money in this bill goes back to the States. Seven percent goes downtown to the Secretary of Transportation. The last time I checked, angels in heaven did not make the decisions and are not making the decisions as to where to build highways and transit systems. It is a political process. There is nothing wrong with the States, the Governors, the legislators having 88 percent of the money to decide how it is going to be spent, or the Secretary having 7 percent of the pot. We think it is not unreasonable, in fact, it is very reasonable, to say that the Members of Congress who have to cast the tough votes on this legislation [[Page H1887]] should be able to recommend to our committee what projects are most important in their district, and we limit it to only 5 percent of the pot. In addition to that, when we hear those saying, well, it is the same old way it used to be done, that simply is not true. We have a 14-point vetting process where these projects must meet the standard, including support from the Secretary of Transportation in their home States, or their mayors, if it is in an MPO area. Let me emphasize that this tough 14-point vetting program was something that was actually proposed and put into effect by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Nick Joe Rahall), a Democrat. So this is bipartisan. It is something that makes a lot of sense; and, indeed, it is something that should be done. Further, let me emphasize, when we hear people saying, well, if you eliminate the projects you save money, Mr. Speaker, we do not save a penny. The money, if there are no projects, simply goes back to the States or downtown. It will be spent, but it will either be the faceless, nameless bureaucrats downtown or in State government or the Governors or the State legislators who will be spending the money. I do not know how many Members I have had come to me and say, for example, my State government is all Republican, and I am a Democrat. I do not get anything in my district, so I need a high-priority project. Or, conversely, my State is all Democrat; and, as a Republican, I do not get anything unless I have a high-priority project. Who knows better what is most important in their district than the Members of Congress from that district? In fact, I would respectfully suggest there is a bit of arrogance in those who say that somehow they know better what is important in their congressional districts than Members know. Indeed, I would suggest that if Members do not know what is really important to people in their congressional district, they are not going to be here very long. Let me emphasize that, while we have some disagreement in this bill, I have the greatest respect particularly for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. John Kasich), who is not a hypocrite and who said he does not want to see tax revenue spent on transportation. {time} 1400 I disagree with him. I disagree with him fundamentally. But he is straight. This is his position. He has a right to take that position. And he also, in the process, has not sent us letters requesting projects for his district while at the same time saying he opposes projects. He is not a hypocrite. He is an honorable person. Mr. Chairman, I had to take the well last week and to release and put in the Congressional Record letters from several Members of Congress who are castigating the projects but who have asked for multimillion dollar projects in their own congressional districts. Now, as hard as that is for Members to believe, it is in the Record. It is there for Members to see. Last week I challenged any Member to come forward and say that I had offered a project in exchange for his vote or, conversely, had threatened to take a project away if he did not vote with us. Nobody has responded to that challenge. Why? Because nobody can, because that is not the way we do business. Not only in this bill, but never in my career in the Congress have I ever made such a threat to a Member of Congress. So it is very regrettable that the people who on the one hand seem so self-righteous also are dealing very loosely with the truth. Maybe there is a little inconsistency there that I hope one might recognize. In fact, there is a great line in the book, ``The Hawaiians'' which I will clean up and paraphrase, which is, ``How I envy the pious. They can be such hypocrites and never even know it.'' Well, the good news is we have dealt fairly with every Member in this body. I must say I was surprised to see the gentleman from Delaware, my good friend, last week holding a press conference because he does not like our bill, calling it highway robbery. He is my good friend. We serve together on the Select Committee on Intelligence. Indeed, we are members of other organizations here on the Hill. But what short memories we seem to have. It was just last year that the Delaware delegation pushed through $2.3 billion for Amtrak. In fact it was described by some as one of the most bizarre, backhanded ways of funding a program that has ever been witnessed around here. But I did not take the floor and call it the ``great train robbery.'' No, I supported what they were trying to do because we were able to reform Amtrak, because Amtrak is important, not to some Members but to the gentleman from Delaware and the Members from the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak is important to them, so we supported that and we supported the reform of Amtrak. I must tell my colleagues that the reform bill spells out that those reforms must be accomplished by June 1, or all money for Amtrak stops, ceases, zero. I must also tell my colleagues that there are indications that those reforms may not be met by June 1, which means they will have to be back here on the floor again asking for forgiveness for Amtrak legislation or there will not be any money for Amtrak. Well, it seems to me that it might be a little more difficult next time around to get that kind of forgiveness for Amtrak. So I hope that those who sometimes seem to feel that nobody's cause but their own is worthwhile might take a little broader look at the transportation needs all across America. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge is another case in point. A billion dollars. We read so much in the local papers about the importance of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. Let me tell my colleagues there are over 30 interstate reconstruction projects, all of which cost more than a billion dollars. So while the Woodrow Wilson Bridge may well be important to the region here, there are other projects all across America which cost just as much on the interstate system, the highest priority system, and which are just as important to other Americans across this country. So I hope that, again, those who seem to see nothing of virtue in anything but their own particular interest might broaden their horizons just a bit. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues who know me best know I am not exactly a raving left-wing liberal spender. In fact the American Conservative Union gave me a 100 percent rating last year. I slipped in my NFIB rating. I only got a 97. I am not a big spender; I am a fiscal conservative. But there is a fundamental difference between spending tax dollars to build assets and pouring money down a rat hole. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I would say to my conservative Republican colleagues, look at the legacy of our party. It was Abraham Lincoln who in the midst of the Civil War signed the papers to create the first transcontinental railroad and who strongly supported Henry Clay's American system for capital improvements, for internal improvements. It was Teddy Roosevelt, the Panama Canal. George Will, the wonderful columnist, wrote a column a few months ago in which he observed that some conservatives today, had those same conservatives been back there with Teddy Roosevelt, probably would have voted against the Panama Canal. Well, I would like to think not, but it does not end with Teddy Roosevelt. Eisenhower, the father of the interstate system. Mr. Chairman, do my colleagues know who Eisenhower's floor manager was in the United States Senate to pass the interstate system? Prescott Bush, the father of President George Bush. To my conservative colleagues I say we have a legacy here of building America and today is the day we have the opportunity to do it. Today is the day we have the opportunity to put honesty back in budgeting. To spend only the trust fund money that is coming in. To save lives. To remove congestion and to increase productivity. The revenue exists. Let me close by sharing with my colleagues something that Stephen Ambrose, the historian, wrote in a book that just came out recently. It is a wonderful book entitled ``Citizen Soldiers.'' It is a book about the soldiers of America who in World War II slogged their way through Europe to win victory for our country and for the allies. He wrote in the conclusion of his wonderful book about those World War [[Page H1888]] II veterans when they came home, and here is what he said about them: These were the men who built modern America. They wanted to construct. They built the interstate highway system, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the suburbs so scorned by the sociologists but so successful with the people, and much more. So let us on a bipartisan basis in this Chamber today, let us in our time be the builders of a better America as we move into a new and exciting 21st century, so that our children's children 50 years from now might be able to look back and say: See, this they did for us. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, 42 years ago in this Chamber a Democratic Congress, united with a Republican President, launched a new experiment in transportation, one that would prove to be enormously successful in improving America's mobility and expanding its economy and moving transportation from border to border and coast to coast in a way that never had been accomplished before. Today we stand at the beginning of a new century and a new millennium. The legislation we bring to the floor today takes us beyond the vision of the interstate system and beyond the vision that was created in ISTEA in 1991 and to a new century, a new millennium, a new investment with renewed vigor in a future America. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) on the extraordinary job he has accomplished of leading us through the thicket of conflicting issues, values, ideas, demands, interests and pressures to do the right thing for America. He traced the evolution of the transportation system, of this legislation, in a very heartfelt, deeply sensitive and deeply committed way just a moment ago. His words are a measure for all time. What we do in this legislation is not just to continue but to extend beyond where we have been in our transportation mix of the last 42 years. Mr. Chairman, we continue the investment in America that is the fundamental driving force for this transportation sector, which is 10 percent of our gross domestic product. We continue the programs of this country that we initiated in ISTEA that have been so enormously successful. We continue the environmental stewardship. We address safety and, indeed, had we not addressed safety with the interstate highway program in 1956, we would be killing 110,000 people on America's highways today. We provide continued equity in our transportation program for minorities for labor, for construction labor, and for the States through our distribution formula. This is a bill that is good for all America, for all time, to take us into that next century. Not a bridge of fiber optic cable, but a bridge built on concrete, asphalt, steel and goodwill and good vision and a good sense of direction for America. Transportation means economic growth, means mobility, and it means opportunity for America. That is what this legislation is all about. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering legislation that, perhaps more than any bill we will consider this Congress, touches the lives of each and every constituent of each and every Member of this House. Mr. Chairman, until something goes wrong, we often overlook the impact that transportation has on our daily lives. No matter who we are or where we live, we rely on an efficient and safe transportation network. Whether we live in an urban area where transit provides a way to get to and from work; whether we farm land in a rural area and need to get crops to market quickly; whether we own a business that needs to truck in materials and get finished goods out over the roads; whether we are a young mother worrying about safely driving our young children to school each day; or whether we load up the family and go down the highway on our annual family vacation in Disney World or the Grand Canyon, we need a good transportation system in the United States for daily commutes, to transport freight around the country, and to provide opportunities for tourism and for recreation. Transportation is something that we use every day, and it provides a safe and efficient way of getting around and moving goods, and it is something that our constituents expect. Mr. Chairman, today we have an opportunity to pass legislation that truly does provide tangible, real benefits for all Americans. Some have tried to attack the bill before us based on the funding levels and budget implications of authorizations for projects in various Members' districts. But those critics ignore one important fact: all the spending in this bill is fully supported by the gas taxes paid and collected in the Highway Trust Fund. In fact, spending is actually below trust fund revenues over the next 6 years. Spending in this bill is linked to the amount of taxes collected in the trust fund, taxes collected from the motoring public and which can be used only for transportation purposes. Spending increases in this bill are so large in part because we are finally using the gas taxes for transportation instead of hoarding them in the trust fund to subsidize other spending. The current trust fund balance is about $23 billion. Under the budget agreement last year it would have grown to $70 billion. What is fair about that, government borrowing from the trust fund to spend on all kinds of things, adding to the national debt? Gas taxes are user fees collected to fund transportation. They should either be used for that purpose, as BESTEA does, or the gas tax should be cut. {time} 1415 Now, some have used the term ``hypocrisy'' to describe this bill. Well, the true hypocrisy is taxing the American public, saying we will use those taxes only for transportation, and then not living up to our part of the bargain. That is why America has become so skeptical about Washington. We are ending that practice in this bill. We should not lose sight of the fact that since BESTEA more fully spends the new gas taxes coming into the trust fund, we have agreed to write off a total of $9 billion of the outstanding $22 billion cash balance in the Highway Trust Fund, and we have agreed to forgo interest that would otherwise be credited to this trust fund saving over $14 billion in national indebtedness. No one has been talking about that, but it reduces the outstanding debt of the United States by over $20 billion. We have significantly reformed distribution formulas to provide for the more equitable allocation of funds among the States. Funding formulas are updated so that we no longer use historic shares to distribute funds, and instead we use up-to-date transportation data that more accurately reflects usage and need. Minimum allocation for donor States is increased to 95 percent. Several other donor State funding provisions are included. A very significant reform is that for the first time projects are included in the minimum allocation calculation so States cannot be severely disadvantaged or advantaged whether they have or do not have projects. Finally, donee States do not lose in terms of actual dollars received, but in fact increase substantially over the amounts received, over the past 6 years of ISTEA. Under BESTEA, we are able to increase funding for clean air programs. We increase by $2 billion funding for safety and safety education programs, and we have done an increase in transit funding by 43 percent. It contains significant reforms to streamline project delivery and reduce red tape, including coordinating environmental reviews, reducing project approval requirements and eliminating programmatic responsibilities of Department of Transportation regional offices. Mr. Chairman, passage of BESTEA today means Americans traveling on the roads will be safer. It means that we will take a step forward in sustaining and improving the economic prosperity that we as Americans are so fortunate to enjoy. And it means that we will be competitive in a global economy that relies on efficient transportation. We quite literally need good [[Page H1889]] highways, bridges and public transit to keep us moving ahead into the future. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), ranking member on the Subcommittee on Aviation. Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2400, the Building Efficiency Surface Transportation and Equity Act, commonly referred to as BESTEA. First, I want to thank our chairman and ranking members for all of their hard work, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). They have worked together to create a strong bipartisan bill that provides the necessary funding to maintain and improve our Nation's infrastructure. I am sure that during the debate today, a few of our colleagues will try to say that this important bill busts the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. This is simply not true. This bill is paid for out of the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund is supported by fuel taxes paid by motorists. Therefore, this bill is paid for each time motorists go to pay for their gasoline. BESTEA does not bust the balanced budget. BESTEA simply spends down the large unspent surplus in the Highway Trust Fund. Under this bill, dedicated gas taxes are used for their dedicated purpose, to address the transportation needs of cities and States throughout this Nation. This is absolutely necessary because America's transportation needs are staggering. Our Nation's transportation infrastructure in many areas is crumbling and it is in urgent need of repair, mainly because we as a Nation have not invested enough to maintain and improve our transportation system. In fact, in the last 30 years transportation spending as a percentage of the Federal budget has been cut in half. Yet investing in transportation means investing in America's future. Economic studies show that every dollar invested in the highway system yields $2.60 in economic benefit. Other countries are already investing billions in their core infrastructure. Fortunately, BESTEA does the same for America. Mr. Chairman, as I said this morning, BESTEA is a good bipartisan bill. It will provide better, safer roads. It will provide new and improved public transportation systems. It will improve air quality by reducing traffic congestion and by promoting public transit. It will provide good jobs for middle-class Americans. It will ensure America's future as a world leader by maintaining and improving our world class surface transportation system. I strongly urge all my colleagues to vote to invest in America's future and vote in favor of H.R. 2400. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I almost find myself uncontrollable here in recognizing and giving 5 minutes to the Honorable John Paul Hammerschmidt, a former member of Congress and a former ranking member of our committee, the man who would be chairman if he were still here, so I want to acknowledge he is in the Chamber and wish him well. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to join in the acknowledgment of our colleague, one of the architects of ISTEA that brings us to the floor today, and an extraordinarily distinguished Member of this House and of our committee for so very, very many years. We owe him a great debt of gratitude. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) chairman of one of the important appropriations subcommittees. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding the time and join in welcoming our friend, Mr. Hammerschmidt, back to this Chamber. Mr. Chairman, the highway bill before us today opens doors for the Nation and the people of Kentucky. First, it unlocks the Highway Trust Fund, providing the money needed to invest in our national highway system and to boost spending in donor States like Kentucky. BESTEA gives Kentucky 90 cents back on every dollar that we send in to the trust fund as opposed to 77 cents they received under ISTEA. Overall, Kentucky will receive on average approximately $479 million per year in highway funding. That is 70 percent more than our share over the last 5 years. Second, it launches the I-66 project in Kentucky, making the first major dollar investment toward construction. I-66 will open up southern and eastern Kentucky to the rest of the Nation, creating thousands of jobs. Third, monies included in the House and Senate version of this bill virtually guarantee that we will make substantial progress on the unfinished sections of the Appalachian development road system, which is vital to our region. Of special importance is that this bill will save lives. BESTEA gives States the ability to improve the safety of many poorly designed roads and bridges. This will save hundreds of lives in Kentucky alone. Simply put, BESTEA is the best deal for Kentucky, the best deal for donor States and the best deal for our Nation. I congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the other members of the committee for a great job on a great bill. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), ranking member on the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, who has contributed so vigorously and so many dedicated, devoted hours to the shaping of this legislation. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I commend the gentleman as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), for their excellent work on this legislation. As we begin debate on this legislation, we are indeed at a crossroads in this country. We can decide whether we want to retreat from the transportation needs of the new century and fail to make the necessary investments in our highway and transit infrastructure, or we can rise to the challenge and dedicate the necessary resources to these endeavors. Those of us who bring this legislation forth today are seeking to rise to that challenge, to keep faith with the American public, to restore integrity and restore trust back into the Highway Trust Fund and to make the necessary investments in America. To be clear, this is not just about an investment in concrete and asphalt, but one about investment into our children, one about investment into our environment, and an investment into the very social fabric of this Nation. This legislation involves the very standard of living we in this country wish to enjoy, and it entails the type of legacy we wish to leave to future generations, our children. Poor road pavement, outdated design standards, and the lack of safety enhancement present a very real threat to the motoring public. In parts of my district, school buses have collided with trucks for these very reasons, prematurely extinguishing the innocent lives of our younger generation. I know tragedies like this have happened elsewhere around the country. This bill makes an investment into improving those roads and providing more safety features so that we can better ensure the well- being of our children. Our environment, let us look at what this bill does. Congestion plagues our cities, both large and small. Air quality deteriorates as vehicles stack up behind each other with motors idling. And tempers flare erupting into road rage affecting so many parts of this country. This bill makes an investment into improving our environment by advancing alternative means of transportation such as transit, bicycle and pedestrian pathways, and innovative new intelligent transportation systems. Our very standard of living, let us look at what this bill does. In order to compete globally, companies are demanding production efficiency. It is estimated that more than one-half of U.S. manufacturers are using just-in-time inventory systems. This approach requires an efficient transportation system. [[Page H1890]] This legislation makes a fundamental investment into improving our transportation systems, not just highways, but transportation links that are intermodal in nature, to better ensure the smooth flow of goods, both domestic and international markets. It has been said that ISTEA represented a revolution in how we viewed our surface transportation needs. Over the course of the last 6 years ISTEA, as implemented, has produced some fundamental changes in the Federal role in transportation. It empowered our local communities. If ISTEA was indeed a revolution, then this bill known as BESTEA is a revelation; a revelation because it exposes the Highway Trust Fund for what it truly is, not an account to be used to mask the true size of the Federal deficit, or make our budget look brighter. Not a pot of funds to be held hostage to the whims and the caprices of our budgeteers, but rather as a trust fund, a trust fund paid into by the American motorists for the express purpose of receiving a better return in building our road and bridges in this country. I urge adoption of this entire bill. I think it is what the American public wants. It is what our children and future generations want. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble). Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to recognize the tremendous steps the committee is taking to significantly to improve donor States rate of return in this bill. BESTEA distributes funds equitably among the States by reforming the highway funding formulas so that they are based upon relevant transportation factors. Specifically, there are provisions in this bill which will guarantee that no State will fall below a 90 percent return on its contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. In addition, the committee repealed the penalty on discretionary grants for States that receive minimum allocation funding. While BESTEA is not perfect, Mr. Chairman, it certainly goes a long way to address the critical need of donor States, and I hope we can continue to work together to that end. This bill is not only about saving lives, it is about being honest with the American people. Many Members in the Chamber today will claim that this is a budget buster. I am a fiscal conservative, Mr. Chairman. This charge is simply not true. When Congress set up the Highway Trust Fund, it created a contract with the American people by instituting a gas tax with the promise that these taxes would only be used for transportation improvements. When these taxes are used to mask the size of the deficit or to increase welfare spending or foreign aid, the contract is broken and American lives are put at risk. Using the gas tax for other social spending is wrong and dishonest. We must, in fact, spend these taxes on what we promised we would spend them on. It is an honesty question and it is time to be honest with the American people. If we are not going to expend these monies for the purpose that was intended, then let us repeal the tax. Mr. Chairman, it is time to spend the Highway Trust Fund where it is supposed to be spent: Improving roads and enhancing the safety of the American motorists who use those roads. {time} 1430 Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for yielding me this time. I also want to commend and congratulate both he and our distinguished Chairman for bringing this truly bipartisan and truly historic bill to the floor of the House of Representatives. I also want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and, of course, our ranking member on the subcommittee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to understand that this is not just a highway bill. By establishing funding levels that are fiscally sound, it provides necessary resources to meet America's diverse transportation infrastructure needs. BESTEA maintains the enhancement and CMAQ provisions set forth in ISTEA. It provides for an equitable distribution of funds among States, it improves safety on our highways, provides flexibility for States and local areas, and it benefits urban and rural America. Mr. Chairman, it is important to point out that these varied and critical goals can only be met because of a provision in the bill that calls for phasing in spending the 4.3 cents fuel tax recently returned to the Trust Fund and taking the Trust Fund, itself, off budget beginning in 1999. The monies that are actually spent on our country's infrastructure have been consistently and substantially less than what is collected. To call this money a dedicated tax and then disregard its intended use is a fraud. Clearly, our country has enormous transportation infrastructure needs. We cannot afford to look the other way while revenues committed to address these needs go elsewhere or sit fallow. That money is desperately needed, and it exists in a Trust Fund. We do not need to find the money to pay for our infrastructure. We simply have to stop others from spending it for unintended purposes. Mr. Chairman, I must tell my colleagues, as a Representative from an urban community, I am greatly encouraged by the increase in transit funding provided for in BESTEA. Ridership on computer and light rail has grown steadily and significantly. New transit starts are exploding. And as such, in each of the last 4 years of the bill, $6.4 billion is spent on transit, nearly a 50-percent increase above current funding levels. In the current political climate of decreased Federal spending, committing such revenues speaks to the recognition of the pivotal role mass transit must play if we are to best utilize our resources, transportation and otherwise. Perhaps the best illustration of the innumerable benefits investments in our Nation's infrastructure and, more specifically, in transit can yield is found in the welfare-to-work provisions of the bill. This critically important program helps restore our cities and return our people to productive use by providing them with the ability to physically get to where the jobs are. People in my city of Philadelphia know all too well that, as companies abandon our cities for the suburbs, they take their jobs and opportunities with them, leaving unemployed city dwellers. In fact, two-thirds of all new jobs created are in the suburbs. Furthermore, less than 6 percent of families receiving benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Family program own cars. This means that 94 percent must rely on transit systems to get them to work. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my wholehearted support for H.R. 2400, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act of 1997. Let me first congratulate Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Oberstar, Chairman Petri, and Ranking Member Rahall for the truly remarkable job that they have done. Reauthorization of any bill of this magnitude is always an arduous and delicate task. But the validity of some of the inherently competing interests associated with this program, and the need for those interests to be both acknowledged and reconciled, created a monumental assignment for those charged with the reauthorization of ISTEA. What they bring to the floor today, surpasses any reasonable expectations held by those of us all too familiar with the scope and complexity of the bill. In BESTEA, the enormous needs of our nation's infrastructure have been addressed, while maintaining the integrity of the program itself. The result is a bipartisan product the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the whole House, should be proud to endorse. Finally, with this bill, we can do what we have promised every American that we would do when we asked them to pay into the Highway Trust Fund at the gas pump- adequately build and maintain our nation's crumbling infrastructure. This is not just a highway bill. By establishing funding levels that are fiscally sound it provides the necessary resources to meet America's diverse infrastructure needs. BESTEA maintains the enhancement and CMAQ provisions set forth in ISTEA. It provides for an equitable distribution of funds among states, improves safety on our highways, focuses on national priorities, streamlines program delivery, [[Page H1891]] and reinvents the DOT. The bill provides flexibility for states and local areas, benefits urban and rural America and supports technology development needed as we enter the 21st century. Mr. Chairman, it is important to point out that these varied and critical goals can only be met because of a provision in the bill that calls for phasing-in spending the 4.3 cents fuel tax recently returned to the Trust fund and taking the Trust fund, itself, off-budget, beginning in 1999. When Congress established the Highway Trust Fund in 1956, it was a deliberate policy decision to impose a user fee funding mechanism and a trust fund, rather than continuing to support transportation infrastructure programs out of general revenues. The Highway Trust fund ensured that the money was collected from those benefitting from the improvements by taxing gasoline, diesel and special fuels as well as heavy trucks and tires. By creating a trust fund, Congress was presumably guaranteeing a promise to those contributing to the fund that the money would be dedicated to transportation infrastructure improvements. This promise has blatantly been ignored for far too long. The monies that are actually spent on our country's infrastructure are consistently, and substantially, less than what is collected. As a result, an enormous surplus has been allowed to accumulate in the Trust Fund, much to the delight of our Nation's bookkeepers. This practice of locking up billion of dollars in treasury notes that should rightfully be stimulating our economy has been likened to a shell game, and amounts to nothing more than fraud on the taxpayer. To call this money a dedicated tax and then disregard its intended use is fraudulent. I can tell you as a sixteen year veteran of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that our nation's infrastructure can no longer afford to pay the price for dishonest bookkeeping. The Department of Transportation estimates that simply maintaining current conditions on our highway, bridge, and transit systems will require annual investments of $57 billion, an increase of 41%. These conditions are indisputably unacceptable and unsafe. In my home state of Pennsylvania for example, more than 70% of our roads were rated fair to poor. Over 40% of our bridges were deemed deficient. These statistics are not inconsequential. Inadequate roads and bridges are a factor in traffic accidents that result annually in over 12,000 highway deaths nationwide. Metropolitan congestion alone costs our nation more than $40 million annually. Transit needs are at least as critical. One-third of rail maintenance yards, stations, and bridges, and almost one-half of transit buildings are still in poor or fair condition. Rolling stock needs immediate replacement as the average fleet age for all classes of bus and paratransit vehicles has exceeded the useful life of the vehicles. Additionally, 51% of rural buses are overage and more than 9,000 urban buses need immediate replacement. According to the DOT, to improve the condition of our nation's infrastructure to optimal levels, would require annual investments of $80 billion. Clearly, our country has enormous needs. We cannot afford to look the other way while revenues committed to address these needs go elsewhere or sit fallow. Perhaps, if our nation's roads and bridges weren't crumbling we could indulge our colleagues as they continued to steal money dedicated to infrastructure so that they could claim, and take credit for, a balanced budget. But we can't. That money is desperately needed, and it exists in the trust fund. We don't need to find the money to pay for our infrastructure, we simply have to stop others from spending it for unintended purposes. If that results in a budget that is not balanced, I would suggest that my colleagues who serve on the appropriate committee should take a closer look and find offsets that would make up for the money they planned to divert from this user fee. Mr. Chairman, I must tell you that, as a Representative from an urban community, I am greatly encouraged by the increase in transit funding provided for in BESTEA. Ridership on commuter and light rail has grown steadily and significantly. New transit starts are exploding. In fact, our committee received over 150 requests for these type of projects just this year, totaling over $25 billion. As such, in each of the last four years of the bill, $6.4 billion is spent on transit, nearly a fifty percent increase above current funding levels. In the current political climate of decreased federal spending, committing such revenue speaks to the recognition of the pivotal role mass transit must play if we are to best utilize our resources-transportation and otherwise. Perhaps the best illustration of the innumerable benefits investment in our nation's infrastructure--and more specifically, in transit, can yield, is found in the Welfare-to-Work provision of the bill. This critically important program, helps restore our cities--and return our people--to productive use, by providing them with the ability to physically get to where the jobs are. People in my city of Philadelphia know all too well that, as companies abandon our cities for the suburbs, they take their jobs and opportunities with them, leaving unemployed city dwellers. In fact, two-thirds of all new jobs created are in the suburbs. Furthermore, research by the U.S. Department of Transportation found that less than 6% of families receiving benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program own cars. This means that 94% must rely on transit systems to get them to work. In the past, those of us who represent cities, have watched, with great frustration, the impact on our community as these companies leave for the suburbs. We have focused a great deal of energy on convincing companies to stay in or come to our city. While this is important, it is not always possible and, perhaps in our zealousness, we have not recognized the benefits of any other alternatives. If a company can or will not stay in the city, there is still an enormous economic benefit to be had, should people be able to commute out to the suburbs. This is the impetus behind the welfare-to-work program. And we have seen it work in cities like Chicago. Suburban Job-Link, working with Chicago's PACE bus company, began serving the needs of unemployed Chicago residents in 1971. The program has proven to yield economic rewards. For every 1,000 workers employed at suburban manufacturing jobs, $25 million in pay and benefits annually flow back into inner-city neighborhoods. Mr. Chairman, again, I would like to applaud the leadership of our committee for their truly remarkable and Historic accomplishment. A year ago, it seemed a nearly impossible task to meet the very real, diverse, and often competing needs of our nation's infrastructure. But Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar held firm to their principles, arguing tirelessly that integrity be restored to the Trust Fund. It is with admiration that I acknowledge their achievement and without any hesitation that I offer my support for the BESTEA bill. This bipartisan effort and product represents the very best our committee has to offer, and reinforces both the pleasure and pride with which I have served on it for the past sixteen years. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf). Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Chairman on an outstanding bill and ask if the Chairman will enter into a colloquy? Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I will be pleased to. Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, as the Chairman has noted, the volume of international trade passing through Washington State's ports has snarled traffic at dozens of at-grade rail-highway crossing in the Puget Sound region. As the Chairman knows, public and private interests have come together to propose a series of grade-crossing projects and port-access projects that we refer to as the ``fast corridor'' program. Does the Chairman agree that section 115 of the bill, the National Corridor Planning and Development Program, was designed to help projects like the fast corridor? Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would certainly agree with the gentleman. I have seen the problem firsthand there. As the gentleman from Washington has observed, I have first-hand knowledge of the special mobility problems in the Puget Sound region. The Fast Corridor Program was developed to address that problem. Section 136 of the bill designates the ``Everett-Tacoma Fast Corridor'' as a ``high-priority corridor.'' With this designation, the fast corridor would be eligible for funding under section 115, as you have already pointed out. Section 115 was designed with projects like the fast corridor in mind and I am certain that it would be an ideal candidate. I commend the gentleman for his initiative on this matter and for the leadership he brings to transportation issues in the region. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kim), a distinguished member of the committee. Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I have heard critics saying today that we are stealing money from other programs to rebuild our highways and bridges. Now, come on. Let us be honest with the American people. The money is already there. The American people pay for it with the gas tax money. In 1956, Congress made a simple contract with the American people that gas taxes would be used for highways and bridges. Seven years ago, Congress broke the promise and diverted gas tax [[Page H1892]] money to foreign aid and other programs. Southern Californians have paid dearly for that ever since. Southern Californians spend more time stuck in traffic than anyone else in the country. And there is another argument. I am tired of hearing this bill is full of pork. It is not about pork. It is about saving people's lives. Every year 14,000 people are killed in roads that are too narrow, too congested, or simply too dangerous for existing traffic. None of these people have to die. In my district, there is a road known as ``Blood Alley.'' Eight lanes of freeway are crammed into a two-lane country road when it crosses the county line. About 10 people die each year on this three-mile stretch of road because the counties do not want each other's traffic. Our bill includes $13 million to widen this Blood Alley and save lives. Fixing Blood Alley is our responsibility. It is not pork. Our bill saves lives and restores our promise to the American people. This bill forces Washington to keep its promise and fix highways with the gas and tax money. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development, a valiant, vigorous member of our committee and advocate for Buy America. Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, $217 billion is being invested in America, not overseas. To put some perspective on it, our trade deficits with China in the next 6 years will exceed $300 billion. Now let us call it like it is. Everybody is talking about pork. I was called the king of pork on ISTEA because I got five bridges funded. One of those bridges collapsed last week. One of my constituents almost got killed. Thank God, no one got killed in my district. They do not call that bridge pork today. Now let us put the hay where the goats can reach it. To all of these political purists in the Congress, here is how they would have it: We would fight to get the money for the States. The local politicians would have press conferences and announce the projects. Then they would brag how they got the money and that there was no Federal money in it. And then they will run against us. Beam me up. I do not apologize. In 1986, I passed the amendment that increased the minimum allocation to donor States. And last year in Ohio, 28 major projects, I did not get one of them; and we are the most deserving. I do not apologize for any damn thing. They can call me anything they want on this House floor, but if we do not take care of our district, no one is going to take care of our district. Stand up today, and you fight for your district. That is what it is about. This is not the Rotary, my colleagues. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, 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, I rise today in strong support of BESTEA, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act. I would like to point out to all of my colleagues and to the American people that BESTEA is green tea. The reason I have attached the label of ``green tea'' to the bill before us this afternoon is because the legislation provides more funding to improve the quality of America's environment than any approved by this body in the last decade. This is an environmentally sensitive and an environmentally friendly bill. And that is good for the American people, because they expect us to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink and the food we eat. Nothing is more important than that in terms of our assignment. Green tea contains over $40 billion for the transit program, the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality program, commonly known as CMAQ; the Transportation Enhancement Program; the Recreational Trails Program; and the National Scenic Byways Program. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the Chairman, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, are to be applauded for their obvious concerns about America's transportation policy and how they have incorporated a sensitivity to the environment in this measure. In fact, the environmental community strongly endorses BESTEA. Let me repeat this point. The environmental community strongly endorses BESTEA because they, too, know it is green tea. The Environmental Defense Fund, the League of American Bicyclists, the National Trust of Historic Preservation, the National Parks and Conservation Association, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Rails to Trails Program, Scenic America and the Sierra Club all strongly support BESTEA because they, too, know it is green tea. Green tea provides nearly $4 billion for the transportation enhancement program. This program provides needed funding to communities to build bicycle and pedestrian facilities and renovate historic transportation facilities. Green tea provides nearly $10 billion for the Congestion and Mitigation Air Quality Program over a 6- year period. This is a good bill. It deserves support. It has earned the support of the environmental community. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation. Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, this is a great day for all of us when it comes to transportation and the future of transportation needs. We know what they are doing in Europe, we know what they are doing in Asia, we know what they are doing in other countries around the world when it comes to infrastructure; and we are falling further and further behind. As one of the so-called donor States, I do know that we have been underserved, short-changed in the past. And I am pleased to hear what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (