William Lipinski

Mr. LIPINSKI

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

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, the last speaker was talking about the current law. Just a little history for the body. Up until the Senate managed to overrule the House 6 years ago and took the Members' high-priority projects and placed them inside the formula funding, the House of Representatives, and the Senate up until last time, has always kept the Members' projects outside of the bill. It was easy enough to accept that the last time around, because underneath the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) we raised the amount of money going into the Highway Trust Fund, the amount of money available for highways and transit, very significantly so those Members' projects could be included within the formula. Unfortunately, we are not in that kind of position today. Secondly, the gentleman mentioned the projects of national significance. I know it is very true that it is not a delineation of what is going to be in there, but there has been $6.6 billion set aside for these projects. We on the committee have talked to a number of people who have very significant projects they would like to put in there, but we decided not to make that decision until we get to conference so that in the event the Senate would like to add some additional money to the projects of national significance or if we can get the administration, along with the Senate, to increase the amount of money going into this bill, we will be able to address more needs of this Chamber. I have been in this body for 22 years. So often discussions such as this on the floor are simply discussions of people wanting to get more into the bill because they are unhappy with the bill. But in most cases the committee position has been sustained, and I certainly hope and I believe it will be sustained today because this bill is the best bill for the country.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons). (Mr. SIMMONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The committee has worked a long, long time on this bill. Everyone would like to have more money, but because of the administration, we do not have more money. This bill is a very fair bill to every single State in the Union. It is really beyond my comprehension that there allegedly are people in States that are going to support this amendment whose States would lose tremendous amounts of money. I hear that there are people in California going to do it. That State would lose over $282 million if they supported that amendment. I hear people from Florida talking about supporting this amendment. That State is going to lose $35 million if this amendment passes. My own State of Illinois, a donor State, would lose $140 million underneath this amendment passing. Iowa, $61 million; Kansas, $21 million; Louisiana, $31 million; Maine, $25 million; Maryland, $84 million; Massachusetts, $34 million; Minnesota, $36 million; Mississippi, $14 million; Missouri, $27 million; Nebraska, $25 million; Nevada, $41 million. These are hundreds of millions of dollars. The list goes on and on: New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin. All those States would be deprived of valuable transportation and infrastructure funds if this amendment passes. Conversely, the program we have set forth here is as fair as possible considering we wanted a bill at $375 billion and thanks to the White House we could only come in at $275 billion. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

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

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I first of all want to say that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the full committee, strongly opposes this amendment. I have a statement by him which I will insert into the Record when we get back into the House. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) mentioned that there are numerous lanes that can be funded on an existing road. According to the legislation and the way I read the legislation, it is only possible to toll new lanes. You cannot toll existing lanes and improve them, bring them up to a higher standard. Consequently, once again, I say we have to oppose this amendment because I think in the existing piece of legislation we have very good opportunities, carefully laid out, where if people wish to toll they can do so to build a new toll highway or they can do it to rehabilitate an existing highway. So I think that this is an amendment that we really have done a better job with in the bill than this amendment would take care of. Consequently, once again, I say we oppose this amendment, and we would like to have everyone in this body join us in opposition to it.

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

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

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that, in regards to this amendment, we have received word from the United States Department of Transportation that they have very serious concerns about this amendment; and I think that we should take that into consideration when we are weighing supporting it or opposing it. I would also like to say at this time that in the existing legislation we have two different programs pertaining to tolling. One has to do with new toll ways; one has to do with rehabilitation. A similar approach was taken 6 years ago to tolling where we had one program where three States could come into a program with tolling. We are far beyond that piece of legislation; and today, we still have no one that has involved themselves in the option of tolling underneath the old program. So I really believe that rather than disrupt our bill and disrupt several significant sections of our bill, we should stick with what we have. There is actually an opportunity for six different States to participate in a tolling program for new tollways, for rehabilitation, and I think that that is the way to go. I can appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, but I really think it is too disruptive and there will be very few takers for it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This side has looked over the amendment. We have no problem with it whatsoever. We are happy to accept it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment; but for right now, I reserve the balance of my time until we get organized.

Mr. LIPINSKI. I do, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to say I compliment my colleague from Illinois for putting this amendment forward. It certainly is an issue that has been uppermost in my mind and in Speaker Hastert's mind for a long period of time. In speaking to him about this particular amendment, we came to the conclusion that it would be more prudent and wiser to work this out as we move into the conference. I am sure, based upon many conversations I have had, that we will be able to work this out satisfactorily. I simply want to give him my support. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for the colloquy that they just had.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. There are at least three other, and perhaps four other, industries in this country that have come to me asking for an exemption from this hours of service rule, and we have looked at it very closely, and we feel very strongly that these exemptions should not be granted. I am a long-time supporter of the Teamsters. I do not think there is an issue that has come before this House that I have not been on their side, but there are some times that we have to protect people from themselves. Consequently, I have to strongly oppose this amendment.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).