Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS -- (House of Representatives - March 10, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am supporting this rule, despite the fact that it does restrict the amendment process; and while an open rule is generally preferable, this rule does allow the House to consider and vote on some important amendments, especially the Pascrell-Menendez-LoBiondo anti-corruption amendment.

The first rule provided for general debate on H.R. 3 and made in order nine Republican amendments, and one that was bipartisan. This rule makes in order 10 Republican amendments, including a manager's amendment by the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) that was drafted in consultation with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Democrats and is supported by the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Oberstar).

I want to again applaud the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for working together in a truly bipartisan fashion in drafting our Nation's massive highway and transit authorization legislation.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3 is an all-too-rare example of bipartisanship in this body. Negotiations were undertaken, compromises were made on both sides, and the diverse transportation needs of all regions of the Nation were carefully considered. The final product truly represented the priorities of all sides involved, regardless of political affiliation. The American people have been well-served by the process, and that is what they deserve.

The rule also makes in order two of the five Democratic amendments that were submitted to the Committee on Rules. The first one is by the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and would allow basic grant funds to be used for DWI courts seeking to change the behavior of alcohol or drug-dependent offenders arrested while driving or while impaired.

I am particularly pleased that the second Democratic amendment, the anti-graft and anti-corruption amendment by the gentlemen from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), (Mr. Menendez) and (Mr. LoBiondo), is included in this rule. Their vital amendment will allow States to enact anti-corruption laws, curbing the practice of pay-to-play contracting, without losing their Federal aid highway dollars. These laws are critical to help stop the threat of real and apparent corruption resulting from large political contributions from contractors to influence the awarding of public contracts.

As ludicrous as it seems, the Federal Highway Administration last year ruled that a State of New Jersey executive order limiting the size of political contributions from government contractors to State candidates violated Federal competitive bidding requirements. Had New Jersey not suspended this portion of the executive order, that State would have lost its Federal highway funding. So unless this amendment is adopted, States will not be able to stop contractors from contributing to the campaigns of those who may ultimately award these contracts.

I cannot imagine why anyone in this House would want such seemingly unethical activity to continue. Ethics and integrity are among the most cherished of American values. We, the representatives of the people, have a responsibility to lead by example. I fully support the Pascrell-Menendez-LoBiondo amendment and challenge my colleagues, Republican and Democrat alike, to join with me in taking a stand for ethics. Highway contractors in America should not have to bribe their way to win Federal contracts. We have the power and the responsibility to end this today. Vote for this amendment.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I support H.R. 3 to reauthorize our Nation's transportation programs. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has put together a fair, bipartisan bill that will improve our Nation's highways and transit systems.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and we have no further requests for time.

So let me just again say that while I wish the funding level of this bill were higher, TEA-LU is a good bill. It is a tribute to the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Oberstar). I urge my colleagues to support it. We also will support the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment proposed by
Mr. PITTS of Pennsylvania. The Pitts amendment protects smaller transit systems' flexibility in utilizing Federal transit funds. Unlike current law, which punishes these transit systems and communities, the Pitts amendment extends flexibility by providing additional time to seek State and local solutions to the funding problems they face.

Transit systems across the country are severely restricted by the current regulation. In my district in Massachusetts, the Southeast Regional Transit Authority is being constrained by this regulation, making it impossible for them to meet local needs of the city of Fall River.

Current law punishes smaller transit systems and the communities they serve simply because they are thriving. These smaller transit systems rely on budget flexibility and cannot make major revisions overnight. On October 1, 2005, these systems will lose all flexibility. The Pitts amendment extends their flexibility by phasing out their funding options over a 5-year period. That's a good idea. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov